■■''!«fM''^.."<.'v;'i'^ 




'm 




,5 °-.. 






v;^'^ ^ 

^^,^. ^>^ 









\ '^m' 




%.<^^ 




o > 



0' 






;<^^ 
.^r 



-1 > ^^ 



""'^ 



fv 





■/-t-t^ 


4 


..v-v^/K- 


#t 


(/ 






(jVi 


10'^ 


'^~^, 



^--^'"^ W^ ^''' » 



THE 



DISCUSSION 



BETWEEN 



REV. JOEL PARKER, AND REV. A. ROOD, 



ON THE QUESTION 



WHAT ARE THE EVILS INSEPARABLE 



FROM slavery;' 



WHICH WAS REFERRED TO BY MRS. STOWE, IN 



UNCLE TOM'S CABIN/' 



Reprinted from the Philadelphia Christian Observer of 1846. 



IS^EW YORK : 

S.W. BENEDICT, 16 SPRUCE ST, 

PHILADELPHIA : H. HOOKER. 

ISo:?. 



5 



Iittoittit&ii. 



It is proposed in the publication of this pamphlet to 
afford the public an opportunity of judging of the merits 
of the unhappy controversy which has grown out of a para- 
graph from the pen of the Rev. Joel Parker, D.D., and 
referred to by Mrs. Stowe on page 191 of " Uncle Tom's 
Cabin." The facts, concisely stated, are the following. In 
the autumn of 1846, the Rev. Mr. Rood, in his weekly cor- 
respondence to the New York Evangelist^ wrote an article 
reviewing the action of the Synod of Virginia on the sub- 
ject of Slavery. The Synod saw fit to animadvert with 
some severity upon the resolutions passed by the General 
Assembly at their session in Philadelphia, May preceding, 
reprobating the system of Slavery, and urging all those 
connected \Wth it to make prompt and strenuous efforts to 
" unbind the heavy burdens " and to secure liberty to 
" those who are bound," Mr. Rood, in a kind and tem- 
perate article, as will be seen by its perusal, defended the 
course of the General Assembly, and used the following 
language : " The mass of Northern Christians will sustain 
the itrhwiples embodied in the Declaration of the last 
Assembly on Slavery. On this subject there is not the 
slightest doubt, and it is but kindness and honesty to our 



iv INTRODUCTION. 

Southern brethren to say so." Dr. Parker, in view of this 
paragraph and some others which he regarded as excep- 
tionable, shortly alter addressed a communication to Mr. 
Rood through the columns of the Philadelphia Christian 
Obse7%'cr, with the caption, "The Philadelphia Correspond- 
ent of the Evangelist on the Synod of Virginia's resolutions 
on Slavery." This opened a discussion between these 
gentlemen which ran through a period of sixteen weeks. 
Dr. Parker took the signature, " O. R. Meridionus," and 
Mr. Rood, "The Correspondent of the N. Y. Evangelist." 
In Dr. Parker's second Number is found the famous 
paragraph which was copied in the public prints exten- 
sively in this country, and found its way to England, and 
everywhere was subjected to severe criticism and unspar- 
ing censure. The interpretation which Dr. Parker's re- 
spondent in the controversy put upon it will be abundantly 
apparent to every reader. It will not be denied too that 
Dr. Parker was fully aware that he was very extensively 
understood in that paragraph as uttering a sentiment 
which grieved and offended a great multitude of good 
people, and that he never took one step to modify or 
explain his statement till eight weelis after tb.e publication 
of " Uncle Tom's Cabin." 

The introduction of the paragraph embodied in Mrs. 
Stowe's work was in good faith, and without the slightest 
suspicion that they were not the exact imrds used by Dr. 
Parker in his controversy. How, wlun, or loMre the alter- 
ation was made, we have no means of ascertaining. That 
the public may understand the exact state of the case, we 
put in parallel columns the language quoted by Mrs. 
Stowe and the language really used by Dr. Parker. 



INTEODUCTION. V 

UNCLE TOM'S CABIN. BR. PARKER. 

Slavery has "no evils but " "What, then, are the evils in- 

such aa are inseparable from separable from Slavery? There 
any other relation in social and is not one that is not equally in- 
domestic life." separable from depraved human 

nature in other lawful relations." 

It is due to Dr. Parker to state that he claims that the 
language used by him is so modified and explained by its 
connection that it does not convey the sentiment which has 
been attributed to him. The correspondence now spread 
before the public will enable them to form a correct judg- 
ment on the merits of the case. 

THE PUBLISHER. 

New York, Nov. 9, 1852. 



isassioii on ^hkq. 



-n -■ 



[mR. rood to the new YORK EVANGELIST.] 

SYNOD OF VIRGINIA ON SLAVERY. 

Philadelphia, Nov. 23, 1846. 
Mr. Editor : — It is a coincidence that cannot fail to at- 
tract observation, and furnish matter of grave reflection, 
that the " friendly address from British Christians to the 
ministers and elders of the American Presbyterian Church, 
who bore a faithful testimony against slavery in the late 
General Assembly at Philadelphia," should be spread be- 
fore the public almost simultaneously with the " action of 
the Synod of Virginia," in which the subject of slavery, as 
treated and disposed of by the General Assembly, is pro- 
nounced " wrong in princii^le, wrong in measure, and violent 
action upon a subject over-pressed." In the "Address from 
British Christians," it is said, " Ardently do we desire your 
encouragement in your praiseworthy career ; most sin- 
cerely do we appreciate your Christian testimony to the 
essential sinfulness of slaveholding." In another part, " We 
beseech you, dear brethren, to persevere in your righteous 
agitation, till the object be achieved. Cease not to expose 
the enormity of the crime of buying and selling a fellow- 
creature ; of reducing a human being endued with an im- 
mortal soul, to the level of an ox or an ass. Stand fast 
by that clause of your declaration which asserts that Ame- 



8 DISCUSSION OX SLAVERY. 

rican slavery is intrinsically an unrighteous and oppressive 
system, opposed to the prescriptions of the law of God, to 
the spirit and precepts of the Gospel, and to the best in- 
terests of humanity." 

In the action of the Synod of Virginia, it is said, " We 
are sorry to be compelled to say, that in our judgment 
no spirit of our day bears the stamp of fanaticism more 
broad and deep, than does the abolitionism of our 
times.'' In another part, " In our judgment, our abolition 
brethren should forthwith abandon their violent and dicta- 
torial bearing. They possess no moral right to teach us. 
They have no moral power to carry out their counsels. 
The efforts of the abolitionist will but blind and beat back 
the mind he seeks to instruct and advance." 

These paragraphs sufficiently indicate the whole tenor 
aud spirit of the document sent forth by the Synod of Vir- 
ginia. The fact that the late action of the General Assem- 
bly was the thing aimed at by the Synod, indicates, be- 
yond mistake, their meaning of the term " abolitionism." 
It is the testimony borne against slavery as " an unright. 
eous and oppressive system," against which they publish 
their protest. They say, " though much disputed, various 
expressions in the resolutions of the Assembly clearly in- 
dicate the doctrine of the essential sinfulness of the relation 
of master and servant, while the general bearing of the re- 
solutions as clearly establishes this interpretation." The 
question is thus pressed to an issue, not whether the great 
body of Christians at the North sanction the violent mea- 
sures and vituperative denunciations of a few, who are re- 
presented as saying, " We have exhausted the argument 
with the slaveholder, and must now try the virtue of cold 
steel r'' On this point there can be no mistake. Our 
Southern brethren must know that the great mass of Chris- 
tians in the non-slaveholding States give no countenance to 
the mad projects of a few who would " call down fire from 
heaven " upon those who will not submit to their dicta- 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 9 

tion. Identity with them is not the question forced upon 
us by the action of the Synod of Virginia. But it is this — 
whether the mass of Northern Christians will sustain the 
principles embodied in the declaration of the last Assembly 
on the subject of slavery. On this point there is not the 
slightest doubt, and it is but kindness and honesty to our 
Southern brethren explicitly to say so. The Assembly 
would jeopard its existence if it should take one retrograde 
step. They will never say less than that American slavery 
is " opposed to the prescriptions of the law of God, to the 
spirit and precepts of the Gospel, and to the best interests 
of humanity." 

Deeply do I regret the action of the Synod of Virginia. 
I fear its stupefying influence upon the conscience of slave- 
holders. A body of Christian ministers and elders ought 
not, by implication^ to throw their influence into the scale 
of oppression. I know they intended no such thing, but 
their earnest remonstrance against the action of the Assem- 
bly will, I fear, have this eflect. Those who are determin- 
ed to maintain the system of slavery will be encouraged in 
their efforts by what they will claim to be the support of our 
good brethren of the Synod of Virginia. Apart from the 
raving of mad fanatics, there is a deep and growing con- 
viction of the unutterable abominations of slavery, and an 
increasing determination not to rest until this foul blot is 
wiped away from the church, and a jubilee is proclaimed 
throughout the land. These are the views, the feelings, 
and the purposes of a great majority of the wisest and best 
men in the non-slaveholding States. Our brethren at the 
South ought to be apprised of this as settled^ unchanging 
truth. 

Yours, . 



10 DISCUSSION ON SLAYERY. 



[DH. PARKER'S FIRST LETTER.] 

THE PHILADELPHIA CORRESPONDENT OF " THE EVAN- 
GELIST'' ON THE SYNOD OF VIRGINIA'S RESOLU- 
TIONS ON SLAVERY. 

Mr. Editor: — The correspondent referred to at 
the head of this article, has assumed to speak for 
" the mass of Northern Christians on the subject of 
shivery." He says that they " will sustain the priii- 
ciples embodied in the declaration of the last Assem- 
bly on the subject of slavery. On this subject there 
is not the slightest doubt, and it is but kindness and 
honesty to our Southern brethren to say so." Has 
the Philadelphia correspondent counted the cost of 
such a declaration as this ? 

By the principles referred to, I understand him to 
mean all the principles embodied in the declaration 
of the last Assembly. If he saj'S that all he means 
to allege is that Northern Christians will be content 
to see a resolution passed declaring that " American 
slavery is opposed to the prescriptions of the laAV of 
God, to the spirit and precepts of the gospel, a,nd to 
the best interests of humanity," for one, I shall not 
dispute him. But why are they content with this ? 
Because nothing more is meant by this wordy sen- 
tence, than to declare that slavery, as a political in- 
stitute, is a bad thing, and that Christianity tends to 
induce a better state of society than can consist with 
slaver}' . The greater portion of thinking minds will 
cheerfully admit this and more too. The gospel will 
probably one day introduce such political and social 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. H 

arrangements into existence, as "vvould cause us to 
look on every government now existing, as dark and 
sinful — as very far gone from original rigliteoasness. 
But the correspondent means more than this. He 
quotes from the paper issued by tlie Synod of Vir- 
ginia, the clause in which they say, " Though much 
disputed, various expressions in the resolutions of 
the Assembl}^ clearly indicate the doctrine of the 
essential sinfulness of the relation of master and ser- 
vant, while the general bearing of the resolution as 
clearly establishes this interpretation." From the 
connection in which the correspondent has quoted 
this, and from the part which he has quoted in the 
language of the Assembly itself, it is evident that he 
means to assert that the mass of Northern Christians 
will sustain this censure on slave-holding as being in it- 
self a sin. There is an expression in the Assembly's 
document which implies that the holding of a slave 
is a sin. It is this. " We would not undertake to 
determine the degree of moral turpitude on the part of 
individuals involved by it," (slavery.) 

This language implies that the Assembly has 
judged every man who holds a slave as being thereby 
rendered culpable. So the Synod of Virginia under- 
stand this expression in connection with the state- 
ment quoted by the correspondent of the Evangelist^ 
and cited above. 

The fact is, the Assembly both maintains and de- 
nies that slavery is a sin in itself. In the passages 
above referred to, if taken together, it maintains it. 
In the following passages it denies it. They say, 
" We cannot pronounce a judgment of general and 
promiscuous condemnation, implying that destitu- 
tion of Christian principle and feeling which should 



12 DISCUSSION ON SL AVERT. 

exclude from the table of the Lord, all who stand in 
the legal relation of masters to slaves ; or justify us 
in withholding our ecclesiastical and Christian fel- 
lowship from them." Again, " AYe have no right to 
institute and prescribe tests of Christian character 
and church membership, not recognized and sanc- 
tioned in the sacred Scriptures, and in our stand- 
ards," &c. This language plainly implies that the 
Scriptures and our standards do not treat the hold- 
ing of slaves as a sin. Allow me, through your col- 
umns, to ask the correspondent of the Evangelist one 
or two plain questions : — 

1. Do you assert that the great mass of Northern 
Christians hold that it is a sin for a man to own a 
slave ? Please take notice that my question is not, 
whether it be a sin to oluse a slave. On that point, 
you well know that there is no difference between 
yourself and your Southern brethren. Nor is it a 
question whether a master is bound benevolently to 
seek the good of his jooor slave, as truly as it is your 
duty to seek the good of your poor neighbor. But 
do Northern Christians hold, that it is a sin for a 
man to own a slave ? 

2. Dare you, or any of your brethren, who agree 
with you, in the city of Philadelphia, maintain in the 
presence of " the mass of Northern Christians " in 
your own churches, that " the owning of a slave is a 
sin ".^ I am sure you dare not. You can talk about 
*'the abominations of slavery" — " that horrible sys- 
tem," &c., &c., because you know full well that no 
Christian people. North or South, love slavery. But 
*'the great mass of Northern Christians" believe 
that our Southern brethren are unjustly censured, 
that while men like the correspondent of the Uvan- 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 13 

gelist, do not descend to tlie billingsgate abuse of 
Garrison, they cautiously and gently insinuate the 
same doctrines, thus condemning the righteous and 
justifying the wicked. I assert, then, without the 
least fear of contradiction by " the great mass of 
Northern Christians," that while they would be glad, 
almost as glad as their Southern brethren, to s^e 
slavery removed from our land, yet they "will \iiot] 
sustain the principles embodied in the declaration of 
the last Assembly," so far as those principles teach that 
the holding of a slave is a sin^ " and it is but kindness 
and honesty to our Southern brethren to say so." 
I am, Mr. Editor, your obedient servant, 

0, R. MERIDIONUS. 



14 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 



[MR. rood's reply.] 
REPLY TO " 0. R. MERIDIOFUS:' 

Mr. Editor, — The communication of your cor- 
respondent fell under my observation in good time. 
I need make no apology in furnisliing a reply. I 
had a perfect right to review "the action of the 
Synod of Virginia, on the subject of slavery," and 
" Meridionus" had an equally perfect right to pen his 
strictures, which 3^ou have published. I am a strong 
advocate of the doctrine of free discussion ; and if I 
am unable to maintain my positions, I have no foolish 
pride in abandoning them. 

I said in my letter to the Evangelist^ "the mass of 
Northern Christians will sustain the principles em- 
bodied in the declaration of the last Assemblj^ on 
slavery. On this subject there is not the slightest 
doubt; and it is but kindness and honesty to our 
Southern brethren to say so." " Meridionus" asks, 
"Has the Philadelphia correspondent counted the 
cost of such a declaration as this?" This much I 
can say, that nothing has as yet appeared, which in- 
duces a suspicion of the correctness of the sentiment 
I advanced. I do not say that the mass of Northern 
Christians will sustain the doctrine which "Meridio- 
nus" claims is taught in the action of the Assembly, 
to wit : that ^^ slave-holding is itself necessarily a sinJ^ 
He travels beyond the record, and draws unwarranted 
inferences, and then endeavors to hold me responsible 
for the creations of his own fancy. Hence, he says. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAYERY. 15 

"the great mass of Northern Christians believe that 
our Southern brethren are unjustly censured — that 
while men like the correspondent of the Evangelisi 
do not descend to the billingsgate abuse of Garrison, 
they cautiously and gently insinuate the so.me doc- 
trines ; thus condemning the righteous, and justifying 
the wicked." I trust I shall be able to show, that 
this is quite gratuitous, and without any just founda- 
tion. Can nothing be said in opposition to slavery, 
without incurring the charge of fanaticism, and 
joining hands with reckless men, who glory most 
when they are most abusive and denunciatory ? Is 
there no conservative ground on which the opposers 
of slavery can stand, and fearlessly exhibit its enor- 
mities ? Are Wilberforce and Clarkson to be iden- 
tified with George Thompson, in England ; or Dr. 
Hawes and Mr. Barnes to be charged with the indis- 
cretions and sins of Wm. L. Garrison, in this country ? 
Cannot men of prudence and piety bear their testi- 
mony against slaverj^, without being held responsible 
for the fierce denunciations of those to whom they 
give no countenance, and with whom they have no 
fellowship ? There is a foundation on which all good 
men can stand, in their war against slavery, that is 
entirely exempt from the charge of fanaticism, and 
proscription, and denunciation. These are not the 
weapons which my views of the teaching and the 
spirit of the gospel lead me to select. And yet, ac- 
cording to your correspondent, my principles would 
place me in the same category with men who are distin- 
guished chiefly for the use of vile epithets and bil- 
lingsgate abuse. I protest against a representation 
so unfounded and unjust. 

I plant myself on the broad position of the General 



16 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

Assembly, that tlie system of slavery as it exists in 
this country, ^' is opposed to the prescriptions of the 
law of God, to the spirit and precepts of the gospel, 
and to the best interests of humanity." By the 
system of slavery, I mean an assemblage of things 
pertainiug to it, adjusted into a regular whole — or 
the whole plan or scheme of human servitude, con- 
sisting of many parts, and connected in such a man- 
ner, as to create a chain of mutual dependencies. 
The working of this system is proved, by an expe- 
rience of more than half a century, to be fraught 
with the most disastrous consequences — socially, 
politically, and morally. If a tree is known by its 
fruits, it is quite certain that this is a deadly Upas, 
sending forth putrid and poisonous exhalations in 
every direction. All good men ought to unite in 
" hewing it down, and casting it into the fire." 

But are there not good men so environed with the 
difficulties which this system throws around them, 
that they cannot, at once, extricate themselves from 
its blighting influence? Are there not men, who 
hold the legal relation of masters, in conformity with 
the great law of love ? I have no doubt of it ; nor 
have I ever said any thing to the contrary. The 
General Assembly do not teach any doctrine at war 
with this sentiment. The representation of your cor- 
respondent, that the '' Assembly both maintains and 
denies that slavery is a sin in itself," is entirely erro- 
neous. Their action is consistent, and no mystifica- 
tion or special pleading can show it to be otherwise. 
They did, indeed, intend to discriminate between the 
system, and those Christian brethren who are, of ne- 
cessity, involved in its evil workings, and deplore its 
bitter fruits, and are sincerely laboring and praying 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 17 

for its subversion. In regard to these, they say in 
the spirit of kindness and benevolence which the 
gospel requires, " we cannot pronounce a judgment 
of general and promiscuous condemnation, implying 
that destitution of Christian principle and feeling 
which should exclude from the table of the Lord all 
who stand in the legal relation of masters to slaves ; 
or justify us in withholding our ecclesiastical and 
Christian fellowship from them." This is perfectly 
consistent with the declaration, that "American 
slavery is opposed to the prescriptions of the law of 
God, to the spirit and precepts of the gospel, and to 
the best interests of humanity." Good men are 
placed by it in circumstances of great difficulty and 
trial. But if they hold the system in righteous ab- 
horrence, and labor in the best way they can for its 
subversion, I do not withhold from them Christian 
sympathy and fellowship. I have never advocated 
such a sentiment, nor " cautiously and gently insinu- 
ated doctrines which condemn the righteous and 
justify the wicked." The "one or two plain ques- 
tions" of your correspondent are thus, I trust, an- 
swered to his satisfaction. If there are those who 
teach that "the holding of a slave is necessarily a 
sin," I am not of the number. And yet I have no 
doubt of the entire truth of my remark, on which 
your correspondent joins issue, that " the mass of 
Northern Christians will sustain the 'princrples em- 
bodied in the declaration of the last Assemblj^, on the 
subject of slavery." Why should they not ? Every 
new development of the system fastens the stamp of 
reprobation more deeply upon it. The more good 
men see of it, the more settled and determined is 
their opposition to it. 



18 DISCUSSION ON SLAYEIRY. 

And tlien, we have occasional testimony from the 
South, confirming ail our impressions of the mischief 
and misery induced by its prevalence. In a recent 
conversation with an intelligent educated gentleman 
from a slave-holding State, whose permanent resi- 
dence is there, he said, (I give his exact language,) 
" The system of slavery is most unquestionably a 
leaden weight upon all the institutions of the South, 
political, civil, and religious. It is an incubus that 
broods over, and to no inconsiderable extent, para- 
lyzes the energies of both Church and State, and in 
its domestic relations, it is a fearful evil." Testimony 
like this, it will be very difficult to invalidate, for it 
is given with a personal knowledge of the working 
of the system, and under strong motives to bear 
counter testimon}^ 

I was amused at the adi'oitness of the i-emark of 
your correspondent, that the mass of ISTorthern 
Christians Avould be glad, almost as glad as their 
Southern hretJiren^ to see slavery removed from our 
land." I suppose he intended this as a playful, 
ironical suggestion, in view of what he regards the 
over-zealous efforts of some Northern Christians in 
relation to this subject. I am well aware that our 
Southern brethren are placed in exceedingly trying, 
embarrassing circumstances. But they are not re- 
lieved b}^ such action as that taken by the Synod of 
Virginia. The aid proffered by your correspondent, 
does not meet the emergency of the case. The diffi- 
culty must be manfully met — not by checking and 
removing the evils which are said to be incidental to 
slavery, but by a resolute, united effort to subvert 
the system itself The incidental evils are ^jar/^ and 
parcel of the thing^ and can never he separated from it. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 19 

I admit this is the appropriate business of our 
Southern brethren, and it was because, as it seemed 
to me, they were diverting themselves from the grand 
object which should engage their attention, and 
urging a false issue, that I ventured to pen my stric- 
tures, of which " Meridionus" complains. 

THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST. 



20 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 



[dr. PARKER.] 

THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST 
AGAIN. 

Mr. Editor : — I am exceedingly gratified with the 
reply of the Correspondent of the Evangelist to my 
communication. I think any one who will read 
carefully his review of the action of the Sjmod of 
Virginia, on slavery, and my former strictures on 
that review, will clearly see that the Correspondent 
did convey the idea that ^^slave-holding is itself neces- 
sarily a sin^ But as he disclaims all intention of ad- 
vancing such views, I am bound to receive his ex= 
planation. I thank him for so frank a statement of 
a truth of such fundamental consequence. In a 
more recent communication to the Evaiigelist, the 
correspondent says, — " The abstract doctrine that 
slavery is per se sinful, ought never to have been 
broached. It is untrue, indefensible, and has done 
no good, but a vast amount of mischief" 

Let me say, then, to the " Correspondent," I con- 
gratulate you, my dear Sir, for the bold stand you 
have taken for the truth. You will not maintain a 
false principle even to emancipate slaves. That is 
right. Truth is of more worth, than any thing that 
can be gained by its perversion. But let me assure 
you that you will be persecuted, for this. You will 
be called " an apologist for slaver3^" Still, I beg of 
you to go right on, and concede every thing that is 
true. If it seems to make against emancipation, still 
remember that truth is better than victor3^ Yield 



DISCUSSION GN SLAVERY. 21 

nothing to the charge that you are the friend of op- 
pression. Assert your own freedom, at least, as be- 
ing worth using when God has given it to you. " If 
thou mayest be free, use it rather." 

In the last part of your reply to me, you say that 
"The incidental evils [of slavery] are 'part and par- 
cel of the thing, and can never he separated from itP 
Be so kind as to review this statement. I know that 
the assertion makes against slavery with tremendous 
power, if it he true. But, still, it is not worth main- 
taining, if it be not true. AYhat are these incidental 
evils ? They are things like these. Cruelty in pun- 
ishing — insufi&cient provision of food and clothing — 
separating families by sale — neglect of instruction — 
disregard of marriage — and holding the relation for 
the purpose of gain to the master without any re- 
spect to the interests of the slaves. 

Now how does it appear that these things are in- 
separable from slavery ? Slaves are punished by 
their masters. Free blacks in Philadelphia are pun- 
ished by the police. Take a thousand slaves in a 
district containing that number in Virginia, and a 
thousand free blacks in a district in Moyamensing, 
and which suffer the greatest amount of penal evil in 
a year ? Look at both and then judge. Then, again, 
I ask, ai^e there not a great many humane masters 
who never ahuse their servants ? What is to prevent 
others from doing the same thing? — Insufficient 
food and clothing. What can prevent improvement 
in this respect ? Many years ago, it was usual in 
Louisiana to furnish slaves with a peck of corn a 
w^eek. It was poor fare, scarcely superior to the fare 
of their ancestors in Africa, and then' brethren there 
to-dav ; and not much better than the living of our 



22 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

American Indians. Now, probably there is not a 
planter in Louisiana that does not furnish meat for 
his servants. What is to hinder further improve- 
ments till they shall live as well as the Pennsylvania 
farmers ? Many do. It is in the power of masters 
to promote the comfort of their slaves, and every 
good man does it conscientiously. — And is separating 
families by a sale a part and parcel of the thing thai 
can never he separated from slavery? But it is separa- 
ted from it just in proportion as men are disposed to 
do their duty. A southern Christian no more thinks 
of selling a slave without his consent, than a north- 
ern Christian does of failing in business as a means 
of defrauding his creditors. Men that are wicked, 
do wickedly in both cases. But, besides all this, a 
change in the law itself is possible. Slavery has ex- 
isted and does exist, where, while men have a right 
to hold slaves, they have no power to sell them. This 
is at least a possible amelioration of Southern slavery. 
The domestic slave-trade is not inseparable from 
slavery. — The disregard of the marriage relation is 
not inseparable from slavery. The laws, it is true, 
do not enforce matrimonial obligations, nor protect 
the rights of the married. But there is nothing to hin- 
der the religious celebration of marriage and a reli- 
gious inculcation of conjugal duties. The slaves of the 
South understand the relations and duties of husband 
and wife, and are more strongly influenced by mar- 
riage vows, and their purity is better protected than 
it was before they were in bondage among a civilized 
and Christian people. Thousands of families of 
slaves are entirely secure in the enjoyment of all the 
privileges of married persons, except there is a bare 
possibility that through the insolvency of a master 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 23 

they may be separated in the settlement of his estate. 
Even, then, they will ordinarily be purchased by 
family friends and removed by whole families. Yet 
this evil is not inseparable, for the law may be modi- 
fied. 

Is neglect of instruction inseparable from slavery ? 
Whole plantations are better taught, more tho- 
roughly catechised in the elements of religious truth, 
than an equal number of hired servants, taking a 
street in course in the city of Philadelphia. Was 
not a man bought out of bondage, and all his family, 
in Alabama, a short time since, because he was a good 
Latin, Greek, and Hebrew scholar, and a well read 
theologian? Did not many Eornan slaves become 
the teachers of youth, and even authors of works, 
whose classic beauties delight our Universities to- 
day ? The truth is, slaves can be taught to an indefi- 
nite extent in all those things that are of most con- 
sequence to a degraded people. If the money that 
has been expended in embittering the South by an 
ill-timed and ill-natured and unjust censuring of hon- 
est men, had been employed in preaching the gospel 
in the Southern country, there would have been no 
complaint of the neglect of the instruction of slaves. 
— But is it insepar able from slavery^ that men hold the 
relation for the purpose of gain to the master, with- 
out any respect to the interests of the slaves ? You 
have yourself conceded that it is not. You " grant 
that some masters retain their slaves, not for the sake 
of pecuniary gain, but from motives of benevolence" 
— that " one man in a hundred or a thousand holds 
slaves in ha,rmony with the great law of love." Then, 
certainly, a had intention is not ^Mseparahle from slave- 
ry — apart and parcel of the thing itself Every 01 iris- 



24 DISCUSSION OX SLAVERY. 

tian that holds a slave, holds him in harmony with 
the great law of love. If j'ou take all the rulers, 
from Nimrod to Nicholas of Russia, that have go- 
verned without a written constitution, you will not 
find more than one in a hundred or a thousand, that 
have governed in harmony v/ith the great law of 
love. Still the holding of absolute power is not sin- 
ful in 5e, nor has Christianity ever aimed at the sub- 
version of a despotic throne, as its direct object. It 
has aimed to enlighten, raise, and purify the people, 
and left the improved mass of mind to assume a new 
political form, corresponding with its improved char- 
acter. 

If we had aimed directly to change the external 
structure of society in the Sandwich Islands, we 
should not have succeeded. True, the people were 
all enslaved. But their depravitj^, the intrinsic de- 
gradation of the race, had placed them there. They 
and their despotic masters were sinners together. 

We began to act on individual character. Our 
Christianity has wrought a change in individual 
character. This change is naturally expressing itself 
in laws, and a written constitution, trial by jurj^, 
&c. &c. 

What, then, are the evils that are inseparable from 
slavery ? There is not one, that is not equally in- 
separable from depraved human nature in other law- 
ful relations. It is possible for any other master to 
treat his slaves as well as Abraham did his. It is 
possible that a master and his slave may be both de- 
vout people. It is possible that the one may be as 
rich as Joseph of Arimathea and as devout, and the 
other may be as pious as Lazarus, and less poorly 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 25 

provided for, though as helpless and as full of sores, 
and a slave. 

Recollect, jou have maintained that the subver- 
sion of the system is the only thing that can be done. 
Then, is it nothing to convert and save a poor slave ? 
Is it nothing to instruct whole plantations in elemen- 
tary religious truth ? Is it nothing to secure the 
preaching of the gospel to the black population? 
But you say, '' The incidental evils are part and loarcel 
of the thing itself and. can never he separated from it J'' 
What vice is there that cannot be repented of and 
abandoned — what virtue that cannot be cherished 
and cultivated, both by slaves and their masters ? 
Not one. I am sure you will recall this position, for 
you love truth better than any wrong position, 
though it should seem to favor a good object. 

Whether the Assembly's document has both mam- 
tained and denied that slavery is a sin in itself, I 
leave to any unprejudiced reader. If the intimation, 
that a '' degree of moral turpitude" belongs to " the 
individuals involved" in slavery is not a maintaining 
that slavery is a sin in itself, then I confess I do not 
understand plain English. That it is denied after- 
wards, is equally, clear. 

I am sure, it is not obvious to me why you were 
amused with my saying, that the mass of Northern 
Christians zvould he glad, almost as glad as our South- 
ern hrethren^ to see slavery removed from our land. I 
meant it certainly as a very serious statement.; and 
whatever those may think of it, who fancy they 
have philanthropy to boast of, you, at least, are too 
modest a man, to claim that you feel an^^thing like 
the degree of zeal for removing slavery, that the 
Rev. Mr. Stiles, of Richmond, the Rev. Dr. Hill, of 



26' PISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

Winchester, and their associates, feel in the same 
work. 

In conclusion, I have one word to saj about '^ cau- 
tiously and gently insinuating the same doctrines." 
I think, that the maintaining that slavery is a sin in 
itself, which still appears to me to be implied in your 
statement in the first article, you did maintain the 
same doctrine — and if I understand the assertion, 
that " The incidental evils are "part omd 'parcel of the 
thing ^ and com never he separated from it^'' this is also 
the same doctrine. It is a maintaining that slavery 
is a complication of principles so combined, that no 
moral chemistry can decompose it, and qn^^^ man 
that holds a bondman does, of necessity, while he 
holds him, inflict an enormous wrong. This, I think^ 
is condemning the just. At any rate, it is so under- 
stood by Southern men, 

0, R, MERIDIONUS, 



DISGUSSIOX ON SLAVERY. 27 



[MR. ROOD.] 
REJOINDER TO '^ 0. R. MERIDIONUS." 

Mr. Editor : — I have a natural aversion to con- 
troversy of any sort. My disposition, training, and 
habits, make me shrink from a "war of words" 
with any class of men. Phrenologists tell me that 
the "bump of combativeness " is but feebly deve- 
loped in my cranium. I think they must be right in 
that, however defective and erroneous their general 
theory may be. 

In my review of the " action of the Synod of 
Virginia on slavery," I had not the slightest anticipa- 
tion of calling into the field an antagonist of so much 
shrewdness and ability as "Meridionus" proves him- 
self to be, nor indeed of provoking a reply from any 
source. But I have no reason to complain of the 
course of things thus far. If I must engage in con- 
troversy, give me for opponents such men as your 
correspondent, who well understands the proprieties 
of life, and is better pleased with hard arguments, 
than the calling of hard names. I am fairly in for a 
controversy, without suspecting it, and I shall sus- 
tain the positions I have taken, in the best way I can, 
till I am convinced they are erroneous, and indefen- 
sible by sound reasoning, and the precepts and prin- 
ciples of the incorruptible Word. Whenever this 
conviction shall be fastened on my mind, they will 
be abandoned without the slightest hesitation. I 
have no great respect for the intellect or the integrity 



28 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

of a man who will maintain a position, which is 
proved to be untenable, simply because he has plant- 
ed himself upon it. Truth is the only thing worth an 
effort to sustain and defend. If "Meridionus" has 
truth on his side, I can heartily sny I wish him full 
success, and a triumphant issue in this correspond- 
ence. But if his reasoning is shrewd rather than 
sound — if he teaches error, the more dangerous on 
account of its plausibility ; if he " gently and cau- 
tiously insinuates doctrines," which do violence to 
the fundamental principles of Christian benevolence, 
and nullify the golden rule laid down by our Savior, 
as universal in its obligation and application — then 
surely I do not wish him success, but better views on 
the subject of human rights. 

I have no disposition to recall, or to qualify my re- 
mark, that " the abstract doctrine that slavery is^er 
se sinful, ought never to have been broached. It is 
untrue, indefensible, and has done no good, but a 
vast amount of mischief" If, as " Meridionus " 
thinks, I shall be persecuted for this, so be it. I will 
not hold what I regard as a mere dogma, for the sake 
of conciliating the good-will of any class of men, 
however wise they may think themselves to be. I 
have seen enough of certain self-stjded reformers, 
not to feel any apprehension that wisdom will die 
with them. The world will stand, and its affairs be 
very judiciously conducted, when their light shall 
be put out. " Meridionus" Vv^ell understands, that I 
care as little for the vituperative abuse of the class 
to whom he alludes, as he does himself But I will 
not reject truth, because indiscreet and reckless men 
hold it. The cause of emancipation has been sadly 
retarded bv the mad zeal of some, who have forced 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 29 

themselves before the public as its prominent advo- 
cates. What, then ? Shall the cause be abandoned, 
because it has fallen into unskillful, or, if jou please, 
into unscrupulous hands ? Ought not greater efforts 
to be made to separate truth from error, and to give 
it that prominence before the Christian community, 
which its intrinsic importance demands ? 

I come now to the main design of your corre- 
spondent, in his last communication. It is to sub- 
vert and prove untrue the following statement of 
mine, to wit, that " the incidental evils of slavery^ as 
they are called^ are part and parcel of the thing ^ and can 
never he separated from ity He says, "be so kind as 
to review this statement." I have done so, with all 
the caution and candor of which I am capable ; but I 
still believe that the statement, as I intended it should 
be understood, is true, and can be successfully vin- 
dicated. I do not den}^, that cruelty of treatment, 
where it exists, may be corrected. Those poorly 
clad and fed, may be comfortably supplied. There 
are 7nany modifications of slavery induced by huma- 
nity and the promptings of Christian kindness, while 
the thing itself remains, in its withering, blighting 
power. There is slavery, whenever a human being, 
luithout crime alleged^ is robbed of his inalienable 
rights, such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap- 
piness." A Southern planter, some time since, made 
the following honest avowal. He was walking over 
his grounds with a friend, and when they came in 
sight of the huts occupied by his slaves, he stood 
for a brief space gazing at them in mute silence. 
His friend supposed he was planning some alterations 
or improvements. At length he said with deep emo- 
tion, ^^ I have no right to hold those human beings in 



30 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

servitude. I know it, I feel it — but what can I do F" 
The plan which I advocate, the subversion of the sys- 
tem, will aid such men, who are struggling with dif- 
ficulties which they are unable to surmount. It will 
furnish them with an opportunity of practically ex- 
emplifying their abhorrence of oppression. 

What is Slavery f It is not merely '' the subjec- 
tion of one person to the will of another." My child 
is thus under my control. He does my bidding. He 
is in subjection to my will. But is this slavery ? Is 
it not rather a wise and wholesome restraint, to be ex- 
ercised for the accomplishment of important and 
benevolent ends ? I define slavery to be this,, to 
wit, the right of prajjerty in a human being. I use this 
phraseology in the largest and most comprehensive 
sense. It is the legal right of buying and selling men 
and women, as horses and cattle are bought and sold. 
This is a very different right from that which a mas- 
ter has over his apprentice, or the parent over his 
child. It is bartering away rights, which the law of 
God never gave to man. The will of the blaster, is 
the iron rule bj^ which the happiness and the destiny 
of immortal beings are controlled. Grant as many 
modifications as you choose, of the rigor of this sys- 
tem, prompted by Christian kindness and sympathy. 
Its main features stand forth in all their frowning 
and hateful aspect, so long as the right of property 
in man is recognized and conceded. This right may 
be exercised, at any time, in the violent disruption of 
the conjugal relations, the sundering of family ties, 
the wreck of hope, and the utter and the hopeless 
ruisery of those, whose only crime consists in a dark 
hue, which their Creator stamped upon them. Look 
at some of the legitimate fruits of this fearful power, 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 31 

lodged in tlie liands of man. It has produced un- 
speakable mischief and misery in the domestic rela- 
tions. It has transferred parental authority to a 
source which God never designed. It has deprived 
the ignorant of knowledge, and taken from the de- 
fenceless the shield of their protection. It claims 
the right of deciding how much of the will of God, 
revealed to man, shall be communicated to the slave. 
It cuts him off from the hope of redress, if he has 
been wronged. It consigns him to toil as a beast of 
burden, without any just and adequate remuneration. 
The avails of his labor is the property of his master, 
and cannot be made his ov/n. He is himself property^ 
and of course, can ov/n none. 

Now, as to the question whether " the incidental 
evils of slavery as they are called, are part and par- 
cel of the thing, and can never be seuarated from it." 
I say— 

1st. The nature of the sj^stem proves the truth 
of this assertion. Let the system be so modified and 
changed that the evils which now adhere to it shall 
no longer exist, and you have another thing. You 
may call it slavery, but it is not such in fact. Anni- 
hilate the right of property in man^ and I ask South- 
ern planters if they would feel oxlj zeal in perpetu- 
ating slavery ? 

2d. As a matter of fact, the evils which are 
charged on slavery, never have been separated from 
the system. How was it in Greece and Eome? 
There was no recuperative energy in the system 
there. What was bad to-day was worse to-morrow, 
till the deteriorating process engulfed master and 
slave in one common ruin. In the case of the Jews, 
T admit there is an exception. But the entire Jewish 
economy contemplated the gradual abolition of Ber- 



a2 LUSCUSSIOJS ON SLAVERY. 

vitude, aud universal emancipation. The year of 
Jubilee at the latest, struck off the chains from every 
man, and made him free as the air he breathed. But 
so far as I know, this is the only exception I need to 
make, and the reason of this is abundantly obvious 
from the nature of the Jewish economy. Is there 
anything in American slavery that contemplates the 
extinction of the system ! Is there any year of Ju- 
bilee Jixed upon or desired by the mass of those, who 
claim propert}^ in their fellow-men ? 

Let the evils which "Meridiouus" himself sug- 
gests be thoroughly corrected, and it would amount 
to a subversion of the system of slavery. Let a law 
be passed prohibiting the separation of families, and 
the domestic slave-trade, and protecting inviolate the 
marriage relation, and making it incumbent on mas- 
ters thoroughly to instruct their slaves " in the ele- 
ments of religious truth" ; and slavery would as cer- 
tainly wither and die as it now exists in its blighting, 
demoralizing power. You cannot fairly and fully re- 
move the odious features of slavery without striking 
the axe at the root of the tree. I hold on to my posi- 
tion, therefore, without qualification, notwithstanding 
the exceedingly shrewd, ingenious argument of your 
correspondent. For popular effect, it is well adapted 
to make a strong impression. It will, I am aware, 
exert an extensive influence at the South. Thou- 
sands will rejoice in the comfort it affords to their 
burdened consciences, and will persuade themselves 
that they have been too scrupulous and concerned in 
regard to the exercise of rights which, after all, are 
clearly their own. Look at the following as an ex- 
ample. " What are the evils that are inseparable 
from slavery ? There is not one, that is not equally in- 
separable from dnvrored hurnan nature in other lan.fvl 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. $*S 

relations^ Slave-holders under teaching like this, 
may well resist all expostulations and apj^eals to 
adopt a course of measures to subvert a system 
which is brooding like a mighty incubus over them. 
K I were a slave-holder, and believed this represen- 
tation, I should make myself quite contented and let 
slavery work out its own redemption. 

One word in regard to " preaching the gospel in 
the Southern country." I have great confidence in 
the power of truth. The gospel fearlessly and faith- 
fully proclaimed, is my only hope in correcting the 
evils, and exterminating the depravity which abound 
in the world. But it must be preached in its fullness 
and in its discriminating energy, or it will fail of ac- 
complishing its glorious design. I do not say it is 
not preached in this way by our Southern brethren. 
But I will state a fact, and hold myself responsible 
for the proof. A clergyman now in this city, was 
travelling a few months since in Georgia. In an in- 
terview he had with a distinguished gentleman, the 
president of a literary institution, he said to him, 
" There are many things in successful operation that 
tend to the subversion of slavery, and among other 
things, I rely on the increased diffusion of Bible 
truth as the principal means." Now mark the reply. 
"You are wrong. Sir," said he. "The gospel will 
never remove slavery, while ministers hold slaves, 
and defend the system from the Bible. I do this, 
and my brethren do it, and we are honest and con- 
scientious in our teaching." The reasoning of this 
gentleman, I think, was logical and conclusive. No, 
no — the preaching of the gospel will never do away 
with slavery, so long as such views are inculcated and 
enforced from the pulpit. 

THE f'ORRKSPOyDKXT OF TrfE X. Y. KVANCl'TJ^T, 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 



[dr. PARKER.] 
REPLY TO THE REJOINDER. 

Mr. Editor: — I confess myself disappointed in 
the character of the rejoinder of the correspondent of 
the Evangelist. I am not disappointed in the spirit 
it breathes. The writer is incapable of departing 
from the strictest Christian courtesy. But I am dis- 
appointed in witnessing the manner in which he has 
treated m}^ argument, which was designed to prove 
that " the incidental evils of slavery are not insepar- 
able from it." He refers to it as " the exceedingly 
shrewd, ingenious argument of your correspondent." 
Allow me to say, that while I thank him for his in- 
tended compliment, I should have been much more 
grateful for an attempt to answer my argument. 
Courteous allusions to an opponent are indications 
of a good heart, but it is anj^thing else than sound 
logic to pass over a strong point with complimenting 
its ingenuity. I dare not say that such was Xheinten- 
tion of the writer, but certainh^, in its effect^ it is ex- 
actly what, in those who contend for victory in de- 
bate, and nothing else, is termed " throwing dust.''^ 

I am not aware of the least ingenuity in my argu- 
ment. Its power lies in the simjDiest induction of 
particulars. I have merel}^ asked, what one inci- 
dental evil of slavery there is, that cannot be separ- 
ated from it ? I have specified such as occurred to 
me as principal evils — such as insufficient provision, 
severe chastisement, neglect of instniftion, and most 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY, 25 

of tliose forms of evil which a selfish and Tinprinci- 
pled man would be likely to inflict on one who is 
entirely in his power. I have shown that every one 
of these have been laid aside by good masters. 

I also claimed that my opponent had conceded, 
that some masters, " one in a hundred or a thousand, 
hold slaves in harmony with the great law of love." 
I suppose he will not insist on that exact ratio. It 
may, peradventure, be one in fifty, and in some 
neighborhoods, where the gospel has most effect, it 
may be one in five, or possibly every individual. 
Yet he admits, that those who act in harmony with 
the great law of love, are slave-holders. Of course, 
slavery in these instances^ is not " whenever a human 
being, luithout crime alleged, is robbed of his inalien- 
able rights — such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness ;" and if all slave-holders came to possess 
such a character, then they would all " hold slaves 
in harmony with the great law of love." 

He has made another beautiful concession, in his 
last communication. It is this : " Let the evils which 
Meridionus himself suggests, be thoroughl}' corrected, 
and it would amount to a subversion of the system of 
slavery." Exactly so. It is a luminous statement 
of the very truth for which I contend. It is like 
this. Mehemet Ali, a few years since, was doing, as 
it was said, many things for the improvement of his 
people. Suppose he had gone on in the exercise of 
his absolute power, removing one oppressive burden 
after another. He opens the highways of commerce 
by steam navigation, and the iron road. He pro- 
motes agriculture and manufactures. He encourages 
the cultivatioD of the soil, and diminishes the crush- 
ing taxation under which industr}^ is paralyzed. He 



36 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

erects institutions of learning, and adopts a liberaliz- 
ing system of common school instruction. Thus he 
aims to remove those things which may be regarded 
as the ills of a despotic government in wicked hands. 
Under such a system, the people would be gradually 
raised, and despotism itself would ultimately give 
way, before those changes in the popular mind, that 
should prepare it for the beneficent influences of con- 
stitutional government, and enlightened popular in- 
fluence. 

Yet the gospel and the principles of sound wisdom 
do not allow me to condemn Mehemet Ali merely he- 
cause he has absolute power ^ nor to insist upon the sub- 
version of his government as the first step in the 
process of elevating the people and securing for them 
a higher exercise of the blessings of freedom. Yet 
he was a great slave-holder, and his government was 
analogous to that of a Southern planter, except that 
it was more absolute^ because over him there was no 
governmental restraint v/hatever. 

The Correspondent of the Evangelist has given a 
singular definition of slaver}^ He speaks of slavery 
as a " right.'''' That is very strange. Then he calls it 
a " legal rightP Let me quote his language — " I de- 
fine slavery (says he) to be this, to wit, the right of 
'property in a humo.n being. I use this phraseology in 
the largest and most comprehensive sense. It is the 
legal right of buying and selling men and women as 
cattle and horses are sold." Why, Mr. Editor, slave- 
ry is not a right of any sort. The laws of the slave- 
holding states are statutes regulating the conduct of 
masters towards each other, and in some respects 
limiting the absolute power of masters over their 
slaves. Whether these are in all respects the best 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 37 

laws is a question by itself. We are considering the 
subject ethically in its relation to individuals. I sup- 
pose it would not be denied that if a Southern planter 
and his three sons should take a hundred slaves and 
remove with them to a territory where no human go- 
vernment exists, and if they should stay there and 
treat their people just as they do now, they would be 
still slave-holders. Yet there could be no buying and 
selling of men and women there, till a state should 
be created. Slave-holding is the exercising of a 
power of one mind over another absolutely, and in 
certain circumstances. 

In the absoluteness of the power it differs not in 
any respect from the power that parents exercise 
over their children. In other respects it is certainly 
different. A parent does not make his child a slave. 
The parent's power, the master's power and the ab- 
solute civil ruler's power are all alike in this one 
thing. They are all absolute. The parental power 
is least liable to abuse, because it is softened continu- 
ally by natural affection. In the master and the 
civil despot there is less affection and greater liability 
to abuse and absolute authority. 

One word more. The Correspondent says : — " The 
abstract doctrine that slavery is per se sinful ought 
never to have been broached. It is untrue, indefen- 
sible, and has done no good, but a vast amount of 
mischief." 

What is a sin per se ? It is something that is in 
its own nature wrong — something that is inseparable 
from ill desert. Such a thing is blasphemy. Such 
a thing is robbery, and such is murder. Yet the Cor- 
respondent calls slavery something " where a human 
being is robbed of his inalienable rights." I ask, is 



^S DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

not that a sin per se f And how much does it differ 
from the doctrine of the Garrison school ? — Except 
one calmly states the principle, and the other carries 
it out in denouncing our Southern brethren, as rob- 
bers and men-stealers. 

In conclusion, I cannot but express my regret that 
the Correspondent should intimate that he would do 
nothing to remove slaverj^, if the evils that are inci- 
dental to the system can be removed. 

I am certain that he cannot have considered fully 
the import of such a remark. I know his heart too 
well, to doubt that he would help to lift up the poor 
slave from his condition if he had not permission to 
blame any individual on earth for the existence of 
slavery. 

0. E. MERIDIONUS. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY 



[MR. ROOD.] 
EEPLICATION TO " 0. R. MERIDIONUSy 

Mr. Editor : — It seems that I disappointed my 
opponent, in my last communication. I regret this, 
as I should greatly have preferred to convince him 
that the ground he has taken in this discussion is un- 
tenable and false, and to have prevailed on him to 
come out boldly in defence of the truth, and to throw 
his influence into the scale of humanity, benevolence, 
and mercy. But if his representations are well 
founded, I have by honeyed phrases and a profusion 
of compliments attempted to " throw dust," and thus 
evade the strong arguments with which I was pressed. 
I had no such intention assuredly. It will be recol- 
lected, that the main design of " Meridonius" in the 
communication in which he intimates that his argu- 
ments were met by flattery rather than sound logic, 
was to subvert a position I had laid down, to wit, 
that "the incidental evils of slavery, as they are 
called, are part and parcel of the thing, and can 
never be separated from it." It would not be quite 
modest in me to insist that his arguments were fully 
met. I shall cheerfully submit the decision of this 
question to the judgment of our readers. But I did 
triumphantly show, so far as any attempt has yet been 
made to co7ivict me of error — 1st. That the nature of 
the system proves the truth of my position ; and 2d. 
As a matter of feet, the evils which are charged on 
slaverv never have heen separated frmn the system. Is 



40 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

this nothing? On the ground that these positions 
were sustained, (and " Meridionus" has not attempted fo 
overthrow them,) 1 ask in all candor, if the foundation 
on which he has planted himself is not proved to be 
as "baseless as the fabric of a vision?" Why did 
not he manfully meet these positions, and show their 
irrelevancy or inconclusiveness, instead of intimating 
that I found it more convenient to pay a compliment, 
than to grapple with his logic ? It is easy for a dis- 
putant to say, " You wander from the subject, and 
' throw dust,' and urge false issues," when he is 
pressed with facts and considerations, which hedge 
up his path. I think his argument was met as a 
whole, if not in the order and the manner that he 
anticipated. So much for this part of his communi- 
cation. 

Now for another point. The objection to my defi- 
nition, that " slavery is the right of property in a 
human being," I must regard as urged with the 
design of "throwing dust," without any conviction 
of its pertinence or force. " Meridionus," as well as 
every one who took the pains to peruse my article, 
must have known that I meant this and nothing 
more — to wit, an assumed right, a claimed right, a 
right which the statutes of slave-holding States 
wrongfully give to masters. Most cordially do I 
respond to the statement of my opponent, that 
" slavery is not a right of any sort," in fact and in 
truth. It is for this reason that I object to efforts 
which are confined to the removal of the " incidental 
evils of slavery, as they are called," while the prin- 
ciple, which lies at the foundation of this great system 
of oppression and wrong, is recognized and defended. 
I will go as far as " Meridionus" in mitigating the 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 41 

rigors of this system — in alleviating the sufferings 
and woes of those unhappy men and women, who 
feel its ponderous, crushing weight, and a great deal 
farther than he is at present disposed to go, in 
drying up the fountain which sends forth these putrid 
streams. It is obvious, that the main difference be- 
tween " Meridionus" and mj-self, consists in a claim 
on his part, and a denial on mine, that " there are no 
evils in davery^ that are not equally insepa,rahle from 
dejyraved human nature in other lawful relations^ The 
system is well enough, in his judgment, if those who 
sustain it cautiously guard against the evils which 
ordinarily cluster around it. Here we are wide 
apart as the poles, and I pray heaven we may never 
come any nearer together, till he abandons a position 
which I deem so irreconcilable with the golden pre- 
cept, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to 
you, do ye even so to them ; for this is the law and 
the prophets." 

It will be borne in mind, that " Meridionus" has 
not retracted or qualified the above statement, which 
has filled so many with grief and surprise. I called 
his particular attention to it, and jQi he has made no 
explanation and given no intimation that he is not 
walling to be understood according to the natural in- 
terpretation which would be put upon his language. 
I should hardly have believed there is a man north 
of Mason's and Dixon's line, who would have ven- 
tured to put forth such a statement, much less to 
manifest a determination to stand by it. I believe 
that most Christian men at the South, who see slavery 
as it is, would abjure the statement, as utterly un- 
founded and false. If Northern men can take this 
ground, and offer such palliations for the atrocities of 



42 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

slavery, the prospect is indeed dark and hopeless for 

the poor slave. If the children of "Meridionus" 
were in bondage, subject to the brutality of ignorant 
and merciless overseers ; if he himself was liable to 
be torn away from his wife and pleasant home, and 
sold like a " brute beast" to the highest bidder, he 
might seriously question whether the " lawful 
KELATiONs" of slavery are not very unlawful and op- 
pressive. He might feel somewhat as a father and a 
husband did, who was sometime since torn from his 
family, and sold to the extreme Southern market. He 
was comparatively a young man, and was strongly 
attached to his wife and children. The price paid 
for him was nearly eight hundred dollars. A gen- 
tleman now in this city, happened to be in a town in 
Georgia, through which this colored man, with others, 
was driven. They arrived on Saturday night. The 
slave-dealer got his " gang of human cattle" ready to 
start early on Sabbath morning. The poor slave, of 
whom I have spoken, was exceedingly dejected and 
distressed. He thought of his wife and children, 
from whom he had been forced away by the merci- 
less cupidity of his new master. At length he be- 
came desperate, and declared, " The wretch who has 
bought me shall make no money by the purchase." 
In leaving the place, they were obliged to pass a 
ferry. He watched his opportunity, and plunged 
into the river, and with a death-grasp seized whatever 
he found at the bottom, and held on till life was 
extinct. He choose " strangling and death, rather 
than life," with the misery he endured, and a per- 
petual exile from those he loved. " Meridionus," in 
like circumstances, might exhibit an equal despera- 
tion. And yet slavery is a " lawful relation," 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 43 

and needs only to be guarded against the evils inci- 
dental to it, to be a fair system, not to be rudely 
assailed, much less denounced as intrinsically turong, 
oppressive, and ivicked. 

Stop, stop, says " Meridionus," you are quite too 
fast. The traffic in slaves is a feature of the system 
I abhor, and it ought instantly to be corrected. So 
is cruel treatment, insufficiency of food and clothing, 
and the neglect to teach slaves their relations and 
their duty to God. Well, correct these, and a long 
catalogue of similar things, and render to servants, 
as "Meridionus" insists should be done, "that which 
is just and equal," and slavery no longer exists. 
The system is prostrated and subverted, as I have 
shown in my last communication, and you have an 
entirely different thing. 

The effort to convict me of inconsistency in saying 
that " the abstract doctrine that slavery is per se 
sinful, and ought never to have been broached," is, 
in my judgment, an utter failure. By this, I meant, 
as " Meridionus" well knows, that the laws of slave- 
holding States may force good men into a position 
which they deplore and abhor. They hold slaves not 
of choice, but by necessity. They are restrained 
from acting out the promptings of their humane, be- 
nevolent feelings by unrighteous and oppressive legis- 
lation. Now, if they do the best they can, in their 
circumstances ; if they remonstrate and petition for a 
change of those laws which environ them with diffi- 
culties ; if they truly desire to give freedom to their bonds- 
men ; then I say they are not chargeable with the 
guilt of oppression. Their condition is most unfor- 
tunate, but it is not one that deserves censure. How 
many slave-holders there are, who have these feelings 



44 DISCUSSION OX SLAV^EHY. 

and pursue this course, I know not. But if there are 
five hundred, or even fifty, the statement that slavery 
is^jer 56, or in all cases sinful, is without foundation. 
But is this admitting that wrong, flagrant wrong does 
not lie somewhere in perpetuating slavery ? Is this 
the abandonment of any position I have laid down ? 
I think not. 

I will now, for a moment, contrast my definition of 
slavery with that given by '^ Meridionus." He says, 
*' Slave-holding is the exercising of a power of one 
mind over another absolutely, and in certain circum- 
stances. I think this is mere logomach}^ There is 
no such thing as an "absolute power of one mind 
over another." " Meridionus" is too familiar with the 
elaborate work of " Locke on the Human Under- 
standing," and Keid's "Inquiry into the Human 
Mind," and his " Essays on the Intellectual Powers 
of Man," seriously to claim that this definition of 
slavery can be defended. There is such a thing as 
an " absolute power" over the body. This may be 
scourged and mutilated, and given as food to the 
fowls of the air. But the mind, thanks to Heaven, 
is unfettered and free. Men with all their malignity 
cannot reach it, or prevent those pious aspirations 
which prove that we are allied to angels and bear the 
impress of immortalit}^ Look at my definition. 
^^ Slavery is the right of property in a human being J^ 
I have sufiiciently guarded the meaning which I 
attach to " rigM^ in this connection. Here, you have 
something tangible, something that every body can 
understand, something which is not, at least, ob- 
noxious to the charge of a contradiction and an 
absurdity. You have more. You have demonstra- 
tion perfect and complete, that the " right of property 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 45 

in human beings" is the only thing about slavery 
that makes its boldest champions zealous in perpe- 
tuating it. Hence, the cry all over the South against 
abolitionists, " You would wrest from us our property 
and take away our means of living." Hence, so 
much is said about the five hundred millions invested 
in slaves, which would be sacrificed by a universal 
emancipation. I leave our readers to judge who is 
right on this point. 

In closing, will "Meridionus" please to state more 
explicitly what course, in his judgment, true wisdom 
demands in regard to this great subject ? I do not 
refer to the action of Northern Christians, but espe- 
cially to that action which our brethren at the South 
ought to take. Ought they not to do what they 
can to form a public sentiment against slavery? 
Ought they not to hold up the system as worthy 
of universal reprobation? Ought not ministers 
fearlessly to exhibit the wrongs of oppression, which 
prevail according to your own showing to such an 
alarming extent ? In a word, ought not the sys- 
tem of slavery to be represented as " doomed of 
Heaven," and worthy of the execration of all good 
men ? Ought not Christian men of every name to 
unite in effecting its subversion ? Or is it true, that 
" there is not one evil of slo.very that is not equally inse- 
parable from depraved human nature in other lawful 
relations^^ f " Meridionus" will excuse my seeming 
pertinacity, but I am resolved that this sentiment 
shall be retracted or re-afftrmed. 

THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. T. EVANGELIST, 



46 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 



[DE. PARKER.] 
REPLY TO THE REPLICATION. 

Mr. Editor : — *' The Replication" is to my mind 
the most satisfactory of all the communications of 
the Correspondent of the Evangelist^ because it has 
brought out more fully the views of the writer ; and 
I am satisfied that it is only necessary that they 
should be understood, to be disapproved by all think- 
ing minds, that have not committed themselves to 
the doctrines of those technically called " abolition- 
ists." He admits that " it would not be quite modest 
for [him] to insist that [my] arguments were fully 
met." This concession is very liable to mislead the 
reader. One would think that the writer meant by 
it, that he had attempted to meet the argument, but 
that it would not be modest in him to say that he 
had/ii% met it. Whereas, it will be seen by any 
one, who will be at the trouble to read the preceding 
communications on both sides, that no attempt what- 
ever has been made to answer the argument by which 
I chiefly combated his position. I made an induction 
of the evils incidental to slavery, and showed that 
they could be, and that they were in many instances, 
separated from slavery, and of course that they were 
not a part and parcel of slavery, and inseparable frora it. 
This position, it is true, he has re-aflSrmed, and at- 
tempted to substantiate by an argument, but my ar- 
gument he has, for some reason, not seen fit to meet 
in any way. I mean, he has not attempted to meet it. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 47 

When he says afterwards, " I think his argument 
was met as a whole,^^ I do not suppose he intends any 
misrepresentation of the facts. He probably meant 
that he thinks he has overthrown the position which 
I had attempted to maintain — for certainly he could 
not meet my argument, without showing that the 
wrong facts had been adduced, or a fallacious appli- 
cation of them had been made. The argument by 
which he has attempted to maintain his position, 
shall receive attention in another part of my commu- 
nication. 

I feel myself called upon to notice in this place a 
mode of enforcing his views, which I am sure a man 
of so much native kindness and Christian urbanity 
as the Correspondent, will not approve in his cooler 
moments. 

I make a great allowance for the influence of the 
cause which he has espoused upon his feelings. The 
abolitionists, as a class, have evidently depended 
greatly upon the influence of personal censure, to 
carry their cause. — When their arguments are re- 
futed, and their assumptions shown to be unsound, 
they are very apt to satisfy themselves by chai'ging 
their opponents with "offering palliations for the 
atrocities of slaverj^," and with entertaining the 
" design of throwing dust without any conviction of 
its pertinence or force." I know, Mr. Editor, that 
the Correspondent is my personal friend, and, (his 
doctrines and their influence apart,) one of the kind- 
est men in the w^orld — and I know he will regret the 
attempt to exert the least influence against my reason- 
ings, by intimating, that in taking " this ground,*' 
which I have taken, I " offer palliations for the atro- 
cities of slavery ;" and that he will be particularly 



48 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

dissatisfied with speaking in the manner he has done 
of mj motive in objecting to his definition of slavery, 
where he says : " The objection to my definition, 
that ' slavery is the right of property in a human 
being,' I must regard as urged with the design of 
' throwing dust,' without any conviction of its per- 
tinency or force." The writer knows me too well 
certainly, to think for one moment that I can be in- 
duced to Vv'aive my obiection to his definition, by a 
remark of such a character. I beg of the Corre- 
spondent to have patience with me, while I proceed 
to renew and substantiate my objection to his defini- 
tion. I repeat it, then. Slavery is not a right of 
any sort. It is not an assumed right, nor a claimed 
right. Slavery is a term, by which the relation of 
two parties is indicated. The slaves are one party, 
the masters are the other. The state is not a party 
in the relation. A State may hold slaves, but in the 
condition of things of which we speak, in this coun- 
try, individual citizens hold slaves. But whoever 
may hold slaves — slavery is neither a right^ nor an 
^^ assu7ned right,^^ HOT Si "a claimed right." Slavery, 
as expressive of the condition of the subordinate 
party, is the absolute subjection of slaves to their 
masters. Whether it is consistent with their rights, 
that they should be under this subjection or not, is a 
distinct question. Slaves a?-e in absolute subjection 
to their masters. Slavery, as expressive of the con- 
dition of the superior party, is the holding of slaves, 
the exercising of the power that keeps slaves in abso- 
lute subjection. Whether it be right for a master to 
hold slaves, is a distinct question. If he exercises 
the 2>oiver of keeping slaves in subjection to the con- 
trol of his will, he is one of the parties to the relation 



DISCUSSION" ON SLAVERY. 49 

which we call slavery. If the State aids him in exer- 
cising this power, he is a slave-holder. If the State 
does 7iot aid him. he is still a slave-holder. If he 
stands alone, where there is no State authority over 
him, as loDg as he maintains this control, he is a 
slave-holder. If you suppose it to be right for him 
to hold them in subjection, he is a slave-holder. If 
you suppose it to be lurong^ he is equally a slave- 
holder. If he assumes he has a right to hold them 
in this subjection, he is a slave-holder ; if he admits 
that he has no right, and holds them in subjection, 
even in violation of his own conscience, he is a slave- 
holder. If he acquires them by purchase, and holds 
them in this subjection, he is a slave-holder ; if he 
inherits them, and holds them thus, he is a slave- 
holder. If the government which the State extends 
over the master, legislates with regard to slaves, and 
calls them " chattels," the man that keeps them in 
subjection is a slaveholder; and if the State should 
amend its code, and take away from masters the 
power of selling their slaves — that is, if they were 
not allowed to regard and treat them as property — 
yet, as long as they hold them in this subjection, they 
are slave-holders. Slavery, then, as it respects the 
superior part}^ in the relation, is the possession and 
exercise of a power. I have called it an absolute 
power. The Correspondent thinks my language too 
strong, and refers to Locke and Eeid, to show that 
masters cannot exercise so high a power. I think he 
is entirely right. I only intend by the " absolute 
power of one mind over another," what is commonly 
meant by absolute power in popular parlance-— the 
power of governing by the will of the ruler alone. 
But the Correspondent has himself given up his 



,30 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

definition, ?,nd called " the right of property in human 
beings, a thing ahout slavery, that makes its cham- 
pions zealous in perpetuating it." His language is 
very singular, after maintaining that the rights or the 
assicmed, or claimed right of propertj^, is slavery it- 
self. " You have (says he) a demonstration perfect 
and complete, that the right of property in human 
beings is the only thing about slavery that makes its 
boldest champions zealous in perpetuating it." Take, 
then, his defined use of the term slavery, and substi- 
tute for it the word itself and it reads thus, " Slavery 
is the only thing ahout slavery that makes its boldest 
champions, &c." He certainly did not mean to say 
this. He forgot that he had maintained that the 
word slavery, and the phrase '* the right of property in 
a human heing^''^ are synonymous. Well he might 
forget it, for the phrase is no description of the force 
of the term. He has admitted, then, the very dis- 
tinction for v/hich I contend. Slavery is one thing. 
The right to buy and sell slaves, as a right sustained 
by the State, is another. — They are as distinct from 
one another as the power of a parent to control his 
child, and the right to bind him out as an apprentice. 
God has given parents an absolute control over their 
children. The State has secured to a father a* right 
to bind out his son in an apprenticeship, till he is 
twenty-one years of age, and to receive a considera- 
tion for the father's advantage, if he choose to do so. 
There is no limitation in time for the continuance of 
parental authority. So says Paley. A child is as 
much bound by the fifth commandment at fifty years, 
as at five years of age. 

Suppose a large num.ber of parents were to abuse 
this power over their children, and suppose the most 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 51 

seliisli of them should defend their conduct by say- 
ing, that the exercise of this power is profitable to 
them, would that prove that the possession of abso- 
lute power is "robbery?" and the truth of the doc- 
trine of the Garrison School, that we "had better 
emancipate our wives and children, before w^e talk of 
emancipating Southern slaves?" What does the 
Correspondent mean by asking me if I am willing 
that m}^ children and mj^self should be subjected to 
the cruelties of severe masters ? No, certainly. Let 
me ask if he would like it for himself. I presume he 
will say — no. Yery well, we are even on that score. 
Does he v/ish to imply that I am defending these 
brutalities ? If he does, I do not think myself called 
upon for au}' defence against such a charge. But I 
cannot suppose that he does. And yet I am at a loss 
to interpret his language. 

One word in reply to the arguments of the Corre- 
spondent, by which he attempts to prove that " The 
incidental evils of slavery are a part and parcel cf the 
thing and can never be separated from itJ^ 

1st. He alleges that he has proved it from ^Uhe 
nature of the systemP The argument is, if }-ou take 
away the evils you have another thing. I deny this 
and allege that if you take away unkind treatment 
of every sort, you do not thereby take away slavery 
so long as the master governs absolutely. If he rules 
with the gentleness and benevolence of a .perfectly 
holy being, ^-et, if he rules absolutely over his ser- 
vant, the essential elements of slavery, are still there. 

2d. He maintains that the evils have never been 
separated from the system. Does this prove that 
these evils are necessary from the nature of the sj's- 
tem ? Yv^hy, if this be logic, it proves that the mar- 



5^ DISCUSSION ON SLAVEEY. 

riage relation is an enormous wrong. Time would fail 
us to recount the miseries of families. And they 
never have been separated from the system. — What 
a sin, a constitutional monarchy like that of Great 
Britain, must be according to thi- mode of reason- 
ing ! Read the extracts published in the Observer of 
the 15th in St., from a Boston correspondent, describ- 
ing the miseries of factory life in England, — read it, 
and weep over poor down-trodden humanity. Then, 
do not forget that such evils never have been, in fact, 
separated from the system. JSTo, Mr. Editor, I cannot 
allow my good friend, the Correspondent, to claim 
all the sufferings of poor slaves, as arguments for a 
theory by which he is, without intending it, binding 
the heavy burdens upon the poor. The truth is, 
there is no cjuestion whether we do not both, wdth 
equal sincerity, deplore the sufferings of slaves, and, 
though he may possess more philanthropy than his 
friend, and may know that he possesses more, yet I 
am not vvilling that any superiority over me, in this 
moral respect, shall be vreighed against proofs. I am 
glad, if he loves the poor black man. I thank him 
on behalf of my Master, for his sympathy with the 
poor. I wall repay him with the same in kind. But 
I am not willing to take his sympathy for suffering 
slaves, and his glowing descriptions of the injustice 
of oppressors, as proof that one cannot hold a slave, 
v/ithout oppressing him. 

The Correspondent wishes me to re- affirm my posi- 
tion. 

I certainly have no objection to try to make my 
meaning plain and to place my argument in a clearer 
light. From the fact that he had not noticed the ar- 
gument, made no analysis of it, nor as much as at- 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 53 

tempted to point out any fallacy, I v/as beginning to 
think that it was too clear, and that, on that account, 
he preferred not to notice it. But it seems I am mis- 
taken, and my opponent does not fully comprehend 
it. The matter lies thus. The Correspondent of the 
Evangelist had said in his communication in your 
paper of Dec. 18th, that " The incidental evils [of 
slavery] are pari and parcel of the thing and can never 
he separated from itP I asserted that this proposition 
is not true. I attempted by an argument to prove 
that it is not. 

I first adduced a large number of these evils, such 
as cruelty in punishing — insufficient food and clothing 
— sep)arating families hy sale — neglect of instruction^ 
&c., &c. 

It was not my object to point out all the methods 
in which slaves suffer injurious treatment. But I 
supposed then, and do now, that it was this sort of 
evils that my opponent referred to in his proposition. 
That I was right in that supposition is obvious from 
the fact that he has not complained of being misun- 
derstood in this respect, as well, as from his repeated 
reference to this very class of evils as the things 
which render the system odious. 

Of course, there is no dispute between us as to the 
question whether Southern men are sinners, or whe- 
ther there, as elsewhere, there is a tendency in su- 
periors to seek their own aggrandizement by unjustly 
making a gain of the weak. Masters have great 
power over slaves — I have called it absolute power — 
the phrase is probably understood. I maintained 
that the possession of absolute power does not neces- 
sarily imply any wrong in the person that holds it. 
The wrong, if there be wrong, lies in the abuse of 



54 DISCUSSION ON SLAVER1. 

power. THe flict that one man rules another with 
absolute swaj, does not prove that the master is act- 
ing wickedly. If he has exercised that power un- 
justly in inflicting those evils which are incidental to 
slavery, yet he is under no necessity of doing so. If 
he has punished with cruelty, Y^dlat can prevent the 
possibility of his repentance and reformation ? If 
he has overworked his poor servant, or v;ithheld 
from him the comforts that he needs, cannot he cease 
from this species of injustice? What vice is there 
that cannot be repented of and abandoned — what 
virtue that cannot be cherished and cultivated by 
both slaves and their masters ? What, then, are the 
evils that are inseparable from slavery ? I wish the 
Correspondent would answer this by pointing out 
bareh^ one. To express sentiments of grief for fear 
that tliese questions will cause slave-holders to be 
content to let slaverj^ remain for ever, is not meeting 
the question. If he is grieved with the tendency of 
my views, I am equally grieved with the tendency 
of his. We will let the tears on both sides balance 
each other. The truth is what Vv'e want. He has 
maintained that " slavery" is not a sin in itself — "and 
yet that it is robber}^ ;" — that " hundreds hold slaves 
in harmony with the great law of love," and " the 
relation is unlawful and oppressive," that "the rela,- 
Hon ought to be denounced as intrinsicaUy icrong^ op- 
pressive o.nd loichedV 

The Correspondent asks me to state what, in my 
judgment, our Southern brethren ought to do in re- 
spect to slavery ? I can answer this to my own 
satisfaction. I think their duty is clear. But I have 
not room in this communication. 

0. R. MERIDIONLTS. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 55 



[ME. KOOD.] 
TO " 0. R. MERIDIO^IZ'SP 

Mr. Editor : — As I anticipated, *' Meridionus" 
apparently shrinks from tlie reiteration of the senti- 
ment, that " there is not one evil in sloxery^ that is not 
equally inseparable from depraved human nature in 
other lawful relations^ He says. '' I certainly liave 
no objection to try to make mj- meaning plain, and 
to place my argument in a clearer light." I asked 
for no such thing. I had no difficulty in apprehend- 
ing the statement ; but I did wish to knov^ if that 
position is one which, after due reflection, he is will- 
ing to endorse, and means to defend. The answer is 
somewhat doubtful. He does not directly re-affirm 
liis statement, nor does he admit that it is erroneous. 
The fair inference, however, from what he does say 
is, that he still adheres to it. If so, it would have 
been better frankly to avow it, and thus, at once, re- 
move all doubt and debate. " What then," he asks, 
" are the evils that are inseparable from slavery ? I 
v/ish the Correspondent would answer this, by point- 
ing out barely cneP " Meridionus" shall be gratified 
in his request. 

One evil inseparable from slavery is, hrutoMzing tlm 
niind^ and shrouding the enslaved in ignorance. I am 
aware that mau}^ slaves are instructed in the pre- 
cepts and principles of the gospel, and furnish evi- 
dence of piety. But the great mass of them are not 
instrncted — and those who are, for the inost part re- 



5t5 DISCUSSION ON SiLAVERY. 

ceive oral instruction. They are not taught to read 
and examine tlie word of God for themselves. The 
plen, is, if thev are taught to read the Bible, they 
will read " incendiary publications," which represent 
them as an injured and oppressed peoi^le, and they 
will rise and revenge their supposed v/rongs. " Me- 
ridionus" will not deny, that a thorough system of 
elementary education would subvert the system of 
slavery. Everybody knows it would. So the sub- 
ject is understood all over the South, as is proved 
by the unrighteous statutes, making it a penal offence 
to establish schools to educate slaves. They are 
kept in ignorance, because it is urged they cannot 
with safety be instructed. The plea is unquestion- 
ably well founded. Grive to slaves, as a body, half 
the education that is obtained by the common classes 
at the North, and there is no earthly power that 
would prevent them from throwing oif the yoke of 
oppression, and claiming and gaining their freedom. 
Southern people understand this full well, and if 
*' Meridionus" denies it, they will not. 

Another evil inseparable from slavery, consists in 
the unlawful control lohicli slave-holders exercise over the 
children of the enslo/ved. The Apostle says, Col. iii. 
20, " Children, obey your parents in all things, for 
this is well pleasing unto the Lord." Let me ask 
" Meridionus" — Do not masters nullify this divine 
precept uniformly in the slave-holding states ? Will 
he pretend that children are permitted to obey their 
parents, as God has enjoined it upon them? Is not 
the law of the master, not the precept of the parent, 
the rule by which they are governed ? A child m.ay 
not minister to the parent in sickness, or wipe the 
cold sweat of death from his brovv-, if the master 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 57 

chooses to forbid these last offices of sympathy and 
affection. A mother may desire the soothing in- 
fluence of a daughter's love, in her last hours, and 
be refused, if the cupidity of the master chooses to 
interpose, and drive her to the cotton-field. Will 
" Meridionus" please to inform me in what other 
*' LAWFUL relations" such inhumanity can be prac- 
tised with impunity ? The allusion to the evils in- 
cidental to the marriage relation, has not, I think, 
any great force. There are many unhappy husbands 
and wives, made such by their ill-temper, indiscre- 
tions, and sins, I admit. But mark : all that is ne- 
cessary to remove these evils, is to lead them to 
embrace the gospel in its transforming and purifying 
power. Chrysostom truly said — " Bring me a man 
as ungovernable as the storm, and sottish as the 
swine, and with a few words of this divine gospel, 
I will make him gentler than the zephyr, and purer 
than the translucent stream." But there are slave- 
holders professing to be, and, I doubt not, are really 
converted, who do not give to parents in bondage 
that control of their children, to which they are en- 
titled by the w^ord of God. Briog to repentance an 
intemperate husband or an irreligious v^'ife, and you 
remove their vices, and render them kind, affection- 
ate, and happy. But in the case of the slave-holder, 
you must do something more. You must bring hirn 
away from the influence of slavery, before he ca7i m 
all respects^ if I may so speak, fulfil the law of love. 
There is another evil inseparable from slavery. 
While the system is maintained, masters caiinot ren- 
der to tJteir servants " that I'-JiicJi is just and equaV 
The nature of the system forbids this, on the broad 
scale which Christianity requires. It cannot be done. 



•58 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

without awarding to servants a just compensation for 
their labor. But as soon as this should become the 
settled policy of the slave-holding States, there 
Yv'ould be no reluctance to adopt a course of judicious 
measures, Avhich would in a reasonable time result in 
a nniversal emancipation. 

There is still another evil, which, if not insepar- 
able from slavery, uniformly attaches to it, and it is 
one of no small magnitude. I refer to its blinding, 
blunting, hardening inflnence upon those who live 
in the midst of it. There is something quite remark- 
able in this feature of slavery. I have known Nor- 
thern men go to reside in slave-holding States, with 
clear views of human rights, and a conscientious 
purpose to exert what influence they could to subvert 
the system.. Bnt in a little time, they seemed to lose 
their zeal and S3mapathy in behalf of the slave, and 
to settle down in comparative indifference as to the 
appalling evils with which they were surronnded, 
and sometimes they have gone so far as to palliate 
and defend a system which they have always held iu 
abhorrence. I cannot tell exactly how or why this 
is, but I suppose the atmosphere is tainted, and they 
look at things through a haz}-, distorted medium, 
and are insensibly led to a modification and change 
of their views, and sometimes to the utter abandon- 
ment of long cherished principles. I could point to 
some affecting examples, where this metamorphic as- 
pect has been exhibited. If this is not an " iniquity" 
to be punished by the judges, it is certainly an evil 
greatly to be deplored 1 AY hen " Meridionus" shall 
dispose of these things in due order, and by sound 
logic, I will name some other things for his consider- 
ation. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 59 

I pass now to the main topic of his last commu- 
nication, which consists of a labored argument to 
substantiate the truth of his positioD, that ''slave- 
holding is the exercise of a power of one mind over 
another, absolutely, and in certain circumstances." 
It seems to me that this is " darkening counsel by 
words -vvdthout knowledge." It is, at best, a mere 
abstraction, as I hope to be able to sliow. According 
to this doctrine, every popular, powerful preacher, 
who has the esteem and confidence of his hearers, is 
a slave-holder, and his people are slaves. "Meri- 
dionus" admits that " absolute power of one mind 
over another," is, in the nature of the case, impos- 
sible. He intended, "what is commonly meant by 
absolute power in popular parlance." I know clergy- 
men, vfho have what amounts to nearly this control 
over a portion of their hearers; but they vvould 
think it very strange, if they should be represented 
as slave-holders. There are parents who exert a still 
more unlimited control over the minds of their chil- 
dren. Are they slave-holders? Mark especially the 
following paragrajDh: "If he [the master] rules with 
the gentleness and benevolence of a perfectly holy 
being, yet if he rules absolutely over his servant, the 
essential elements of slavery are there." Does " Me- 
ridionus" really suppose this statement v/ill be re- 
ceived as truth ? Is he willing to abide by it, and 
commit himself to its defence? What being pos- 
sesses such absolute control of mind, as the blessed 
God ! " The king's heart is in the hand of the 
Lord, as the rivers of water ; he turneth it vfhither- 
soever he vfill." Good men and angels are under 
the absolute control of God ; but according to this 
doctrine, instead of being the " freemen of the Lord," 



60 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

they are bond slaves. An argument tliat leads to 
such revolting conclusions, is worse than a mere ab- 
straction. I leave our readers to give it a name. In 
this discussion, we are professedly looking at slavery 
as it is, — not as it xn.2i.j possibly exist, in circumstances 
unknown in real life. 

Slavery is entirely different from the parental rela- 
lion. There is scarcely a feature in it that bears a 
resemblance to this relation. In all divinely estab- 
lished social relations there is a native element of 
love, which softens authority, and cheers obedience. 
But slavery is an unnatural, forced relation, where 
the subject has no natural love to prompt cheerful 
obedience, nor the master any parental feeling to 
restrain wrath and tyranny. Parents never speak of 
their children as '' chattels," or put them up in the 
market to the highest bidder. 

Slavery differs in oil its essential elements from the 
system of apprenticeship. So the planters of the West 
Indies understood it ; so it is universally conceded 
except by those who have some favorite theory to 
sustain. The master has the avails of the labor of 
the apprentice, but he is supposed to render a full 
equivalent in his care over him, and the schooling he 
gives him, and his efforts to prepare him for future 
respectability and happiness, and usefulness. In 
every step taken, the good of the apprentice is con- 
templated as well as the interests of the master. It 
is precisely the reverse in the case of the slave. He 
is a "chattel personal," a thing, the property of his 
master to be disposed of as a horse or an ox. And 
yet, we are gravely told that the essential element of 
slavery is the control of one mind over another ! 
" It is not." says "Meridionus," " &xi assumed n^it, nor 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 61 

a claimed right. It is a term by which the relation 
of two parties is indicated." If this is all, what a 
harmless thing slavery must be ! Who would ob- 
ject to "a ^e^??^" by which two parties choose to in- 
dicate their relations ? If this is slavery, it is won- 
derful that the mass of men should not have made 
the discovery at an earlier period. Just see with 
what severity of language Mr. Monroe speaks of " a 
term.'''' ''Vv^e have found," says he in his speech in 
the Virginia Convention, "that this evil has preyed 
upon the very vitals of the Union, and has been 
prejudicial to all the States in which it has existed." 
Hear what Patrick Henry said in 1773. " Is it not 
amazing that at a time when tlie rights of humanity 
are defined and understood with precision, in a coun- 
try above all others fond of liberty, that in such an 
age and country, v/e find men professing a religion 
the most humane, mild, gentle and generous, adopt- 
ing a principle as repugnant to humanity as it is in- 
consistent with the Bible and destructive to liberty." 
Listen to what Jefferson said of "a term^ " I 
tremble for my country when I reflect that God is 
just, and that his -justice cannot sleep forever. The 
Almighty has no attribute v.^hich can take sides v/ith 
us in such a contest." Hear what Wm. Pinkney said 
in the House of Delegates, Marjdand, 1789. "Ini- 
quitous and most dishonorable to Maryland is that 
dreary system of bondage, which her laws have 
hitherto supported with a solicitude worthy of a 
better object, and her citizens by their practice coun- 
tenanced : founded on a disgraceful traffic to which 
the parent countrj^ lent her fostering aid from mo- 
tives of interest. — Its continuance is as shameful as its 
origin. Wherefore should y<e confine the edge of 



&l 



DISCUSSIOX ON SLAVERY. 



censure to our ancestors, or tliose from whom tliej 
purchased ! Are not we equally guilty ? They 
strewed the seeds of slavery ; we cherish and sustain 
the growth. They introduced the system; ive en- 
laroje and invio'orale and confirm it. For shame, 
Sir ! let us throw off the mask : 'tis a cob- web one 
at best, and the world will see through it. It will 
not do thus to talk like philosophers, and act like 
unrelenting tyrants." Eead Mr. Swain's address of 
[N'orth Carolina in 1830. '' Is it nothing to ns that 
seventeen hundred thousand of the people of our 
country are doomed illegally to the most abject and 
vile slavery that was ever tolerated on the face of the 
earth ? Are Carolinians deaf to the piercing cries of 
humanity ? Are they insensible to the demands of 
justice ? Let an}^ man of spirit and feeling, for a 
moment, cast his eye over the land of slavery. 
Think of the nakedness of some, the hungry yearn- 
ings of others, the flowing tears and heaving sighs 
of parting relatives ; the wailings of lamentation and 
w^oe ; the bloody cut of the keen lash and the fright- 
ful scream that rends the very skies : — and all this 
to gratify ambition, lust, pride, avarice, vanity, and 
other depraved feelings of the human heart. Too 
long has our country been unfortunately lulled to 
sleep, feeding on the golden dreams of superficial 
politicians, fanciful poets and anniversary orations. 
The ivorst is not generally knoivn. Were all the mise- 
ries and horrors of slavery to burst at once into 
view", a peal of seven-fold thunder could scarce strike 
greater alarm." 

What a pity these Soutliern men had not been 
taught that slaverj^ is a mere " term hy ivhich the rela- 
tion of tivo 2^ct^ties is indicated.''^ They might have 



DISCUSSION OX SLAVERY. 63 

spared a great deal of their burning indignation, and 
severe reproof. They needed certainly the light of 
later times to give them a fair and full understanding 
of the subject. 

I received the followins- note from a distin2;uished 
gentleman in reply to one I addressed to him, which 
will be pertinent in this j)lacc. He is known to the 
public as holding conservative views on the subject 
of slaverj^, and he is, by his own contribution, a life- 
member of the Colonization Society. He says, — 
" The position of ' 0. E. Meridionus ' ' that slave -hold- 
ing is the absolute control of one mind over another,' 
of which you ask my opinion, is indeed singular. 
That slavery includes what is expressed in this defini- 
tion, is true enough. But does it include nothing 
more? What would be said of this in the slave- 
States ? what would slave-owners say of it ? I ap- 
prehend there would be some demurring to this ad- 
vocacy of their cause. It might be pleasant to them 
to see the controversy in which they are engaged 
v/ith almost the w^hole world, reduced to so small a 
compass and presented on their side in so compacT; 
and defensible a form, but from Avhat I know of 
them, I am mistaken, if for their wives and children's 
sake they would not ask to be excused from taking 
the j)osition which ' Meridionus' has invented for them. 
I sa}^ invented for them, for he is certainly entitled to 
the honor of a new discover}^ If the absolute con- 
trol of one mind over another makes a state of slave- 
ry, then, according to the scriptural view of the sub- 
ject, every man's wife is his slave, and every man's 
child is his slave, and your hearers on the Sabbath 
are very often, I presume, reduced to the condition 
of slaves under vou as their master. 



64 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

'' Now, unless * Meridionus ' will take the ground 
that our wives and children are slaves in the fall and 
proper sense of the term, he mvM add something to his 
definition of slavery. He must make it comprehend 
some^oii-er or r?^/iMvhich the husband and the fa- 
ther do not possess. What I suppose he must add is 
the very thing which you have urged upon him ; to 
wit, the ricjl-it of property with the ijower to alienate 
b}^ selling. The definition of ' Meridionus,' v.^as evi- 
dently contrived by him to suit his dogma that * thei^e 
are no evils in slavery that are not equally inseparable 
from depraved human nature in other lawful ■relations.'' " 

I have received another letter from a gentleman 
who has been a slave-holder, and at a great pecuni- 
ary sacrifice liberated all his slaves. He says, — " I 
have some knowledge of slavery and slave-holders. 
I never before heard such a definition as that given 
by ' Meridionus.' But I do know that they consider 
slaves as property — that they buy and sell them as 
such, and at death, will their farms perhaps to their 
elder children, and their slaves, Jenny, Eoda, Dan, 
Bob, Ellis, &c., to their minor children to be hired 
out or sold for their special benefit. I think that 
slave-holders as well as abolitionists will need a good 
deal of instruction to understand the definition of 
* Meridionus.' It seems to put slave-holders largely in 
the majority, even making Wm. Penn^ John V/esley, 
and their numerous followers either slaves or slave- 
holders ^ 

A word more in close. I think I have a right to 
complain of the pertinacity of my opponent in striv- 
ing to make me responsible for sentiments which he 
knows I detest and abhor. How many times must I 
reiterate that I make a wide distinction between the 



DISCUSSION ON SLATEEY. 65 

system of slavery, and some, who are unfortunately in- 
volved in its evil vjorlcings ! How many times must I 
repeat that the dogDia that slavery is per se sinful, is 
not one justly chargeable upon me? I will m.ake 
one more effort to put " Meridionus " right in regard 
to my views, and if I fail, I will give up the mat- 
ter in desT)air. 

I know a gentleman who resides in a slave-holding 
State. He owned a slave by the name of Tom. He 
saw the evil tendencies of the system, and resolved 
to give this slave his freedom. He was coming 
North, and he said to Tom that he should take him 
to a free State and give him his liberty. The slave 
earnestly plead with him to abandon his purpose. 
Said he, " Master, you know I have a wife owned by 

Mr. . I can't take her with me, and I can't 

be separated from her. Do this, master — retain your 
present relation to me for the sake of my protection, 
and for the sake of my wife." The good man (I 
wish I was at liberty to publish his name) felt the 
force of the appeal. He said, " Tom, make your own 
arrangements, and receive all your wages for your 
labor, and I wall hold my present legal relation for 
your good." Is that excellent man guilty of sin for 
holding that slave? Ought he not to be commended 
and honored by the W'ise and the good ! And yet, 
the system which forces him into such a position, a 
position which he deplores, is one which all good 
men should condemn. Is not '' Meridionus " capable 
of seeing this ? If he cannot, I am consoled with the 
conviction that all our readers will. 

THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST. 



C^O DISCUSSION OX SLAVERY. 



[dr. PARKER.] 

[WHAT EVILS ARE IXSEP ARABLE FROM SLAVERY?] 

Mr. Editor : — The Correspondent has my thanks, 
for attempting to pomt out the evils that are ^^insep- 
arable from shlYer^^" There are a few other things 
in his communication, that demand a passing notice. 
I ^Yill advert to them in the order in which they 
occur. 

1. He intimates that it is an evil which ^^ uniformly 
attaches to [slaver}^,] " that those who live where it 
exist, are blinded and hardened, so as to become in- 
different to its appalling evils. I have lived where 
it exists, and have not been blinded, nor hardened, 
nor made indifferent to the appalling evils of slaverj^. 
But let me remind the Correspondent again, that the 
question is not which of us is morally or religiously 
in the best state. I believe him to be an excellent 
man, and I know myself to be a great sinner ; but I 
am not willing that the precious cause of truth should 
be staked on my unworthiness. Besides, the Corre- 
spondent ought to remember, that he is not willing to 
be held responsible for "insinuating the same doc- 
trines with the Garrison school." 

2. He intimates, that if masters have " absolute 
power," then ministers are slave-holders in respect to 
their flocks. They must have more power, then, in 
his location, than they have in mane. The clergy- 
men in my neighborhood are as /ar, at least, from 
having absolute power, as the government of the 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVEKY. ^7 

United States is from being an absolute government, 
and I guess farther. 

o. lie intimates, that if slave-holders have abso- 
lute power, then God must be a slave-holder. It 
seems to me a non sequitur — nevertheless, if the Cor- 
respondent insists upon the inference, it is liis^ and not 
mine ; for no man can deny, Vv^ith the least show of 
plausibility, that slave-holders do exercise absolute 
power. 

5. He speaks of my definition of slaver}^ in a very 
extraordinary manner. I defined the v^ord slaver\', 
by sa3'ing it is a term. 

He had maintained that the word slavery meant a 
right — then that it was not a real right, but " an as- 
sumed right, a claimed right." I denied that the 
term slavery had any such meaning, and alleged that 
it was a term emploj'ed to indicate a certain relation 
between two parties, which relation 1 proceeded to 
describe in the following language : — 

"The slaves are one part\^, the masters are the 
other. The state is not a party in the relation. A 
State may hold slaves, but in the condition of things 
of which we speak, in this country, individual citi- 
zens hold slaves — but, whoever may hold slaves, 
slavery is neither a rights nor an ' assumed right,' 
nor ' a claimed right.' Slavery, as expressive of 
the condition of the subordinate partj^, is the ab- 
solute subjection of slaves to their masters. Whe- 
ther it is consistent with thei?- rights, that they 
should be under this subjection or not, is a dis- 
tinct question. Slaves are in absolute subjection 
to their masters. Slavery, as expressive of the con- 
dition of the superior part}?-, is the hoMing of slaves, 
the exercising of the power that keeps slaves in abso- 



68 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

lute subjection. "Whether it be right for a master to 
hold slaves, is a distinct question, &;c." 

Does the Correspondeni: think it fair in debate to 
represent such a definition, as if it had been main- 
tained that slavery was nothing but a term — a mere 
word ? Does he gain any thing for his argument by 
it ? Is he willing that it should be published in a 
permanent form, as a specimen of his character as an 
inquirer for what is true and right ? If such a form 
should be given to these papers, I am sure he will 
wish his pen drawn over all his allusions to " a 
terra. ^^ 

6. He quotes from Mr. Monroe and Mr. Jefferson 
some eloquent passages against slavery. I have 
often quoted parts of the same myself They are 
beautiful testimonies to the fact, that there is no 
where such a strong sense of the evils of slavery, as 
among slave-holders themselves, notwithstanding the 
Correspondent has maintained that slavery uniformly 
blinds and hardens those that live in the midst of it, 
and renders them indifferent to its appalling evils. 
I know not w^hat the Correspondent's object was, in 
introducing these quotations, unless it was to sug- 
gest the idea that I did not think as badly of slavery 
as these men. Yet I can scarcely believe that this 
was his object, because the Correspondent knows 
that I am as much opposed to slavery as himself 

7. The letter to the Correspondent. It is sufficient 
to say of it, that as far as it appears, the writer of 
the letter never had seen my more full explanation 
of the term slavery. In answer to the declaration of 
the Correspondent, that slavery was " a right of 
property," &c., I had alleged, that it was not o> right, 
but as far as the master was concerned, a power, a 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 69 

control that one human being exercised over another, 
&;c. This was disputed. Then, in a subsequent 
communication, I proceeded to define the term slave- 
ry more fully. I thus defined the use of the word 
slavery : Slaver}^ is a term by which the relation of 
two parties is indicated. The slaves are one part}^, 
the masters are the other, &c. See the beginning of 
the second paragraph above. "VYhy did not the Cor- 
respondent show, that this definition, which was a 
mere expansion of my denial that slavery is " « 
riglit^'' and my assertion that it is an " absolute con- 
trol," was an unsound definition ? I think it was 
because he could not. I only ask the reader to pe- 
ruse the definition again. Meantime I have corre- 
spondents too. Several Avarm opposers of slavery 
have volunteered their approbation. Here is an ex- 
tract from one of their communications, a gentleman 
known for his philanthropy and intelligence, a gen- 
tleman who has traveled in the South, without being 
blinded or hardened. I will venture to stake the 
good sense, and clearness, and urhanity of his com- 
munication, against the same qualities in the charac- 
ter of the letter of the correspondent of my opponent 
in this debate. He says as follows :— ~ 

* * " Your articles may be of very great use to those 
who speak and write of slavery, without having any dis- 
tinct ideas of the condition of the slave. There has been a 
remarkable confusion of words on the subject, tlie effect, 
no doubt, of confused ideas. Some have confounded slave- 
ry with slave-holdhig^ in defiance of the King's English ; 
and others have imasjined that ' the property -power,' or 
the laws on the subject, constitute the very essence of 
slavery. 

" hi your definition of the word slavery, as ' a ter7n de- 
noting the complete subjection of one pfirty to the r.u- 



70 DISCUSSION Ol\ SLATEI^Y. 

thority of another, in certain circumstances,' you have de- 
scribed the very thing. Your definition is a picture, a de- 
scription — and every reader may see that you are not 
speaking of the laws, or of the traffic, or any other abuses, 
which are the accidents of slavery, but which are not es- 
sential to the relation between master and servant — but of 
a condition between tico parties^ vrhich may and does often 
exist, amid all the evils incidental to the exercise of abso- 
lute power, vv'ithout vrrong to either party concerned. 
Slave-holding, then, is one thing ; and the traffic in sla\ es, 
and other abuses which spring from avarice and cupidity, 
arc very difterent things ; and there is surely no evidence 
of remarkable perspicacity in the statements, which make 
these evils a part and parcel of the thing. If the power to 
sell or barter av/ay the servant, is essential to slavery — 
many Southern masters are oiot slave-holders — for they do 
not exercise the right of selling their faithful servants; 
they do not even claim it as a right. Some of them would 
about as soon think of selling their children. If this ' pro- 
perty power ' be a part of the thing — many slave-holders 
do not hold their servants in the state or condition of 
slavery ; that is — they are not slave-holders !" 

8. I have myself no objection to the course pur- 
sued by the gentleman of the South referred to by 
the Correspondent in respect to his slave Tom. I 
presume he was actuated by philanthropic principles, 
and I have no doubt that the political sj'stem that 
sustains slavery is quite as bad ; indeed, in m.y opin- 
ion, it is a great deal worse than the Correspondent, 
or any other man that has not lived under it, ever 
dreamed of. But there are hundreds of good men 
that hold slaves, and manage their phmtations, with- 
out any such arrangements as were made in respect 
to Tom, who are nevertheless not guilty of the sins 
which the Correspondent charges upon them. 

Now, Mr. Editor, this matter must be understood — 
and no intimations that I have been blinded and 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 71 

hardened, or that I think well of the system of slave- 
ry, or that I am apologizing for its evils, shall pre- 
vent my speaking the truth, in regard to the calum- 
nies heaped upon our Southern brethren, 

A good lady Avho had never been at the South, 
once said to me, that the slaves were all cruelly dealt 
with, in that they were not well fed, and were never 
treated kindly. I replied, there are certainly some 
exceptions. For instance : my friend, the Rev. J. L. 
Alontgomery, of Bayou Sarah, but now, I trust, in 
heaven, told me that he had all his slaves served 
with good hot coffee, before going into the cotton field 
in the morning ; and I have often seen the late Hon. 
Judge Harper, of ISTew Orleans, take a little slave on 
one knee, and the son of his niece on the other, and 
delight himself in ministering to their common grati- 
fication. Her reply w^as — " Are jou not ashamed to 
stand here and apologize for slavery ?" I have often 
been reminded of this, by the statements of the Cor- 
respondent, If some men do in fact hold slaves, 
without brutalizing them — without shrouding their 
slaves in ignorance — I have a right to say so. If I 
have known masters that not only v*' ould not prevent 
parents among their slaves from governing their chil- 
dren, but who even used their influence to make the 
children respect and honor and obey their parents — 
I have a right to say it. 

Xow a few words in reply to the argument of the 
Correspondent. 

1. He maintains that it is an evil inseparahle from 
slavery, that it brutalizes the mind and shrouds the en- 
slaved in ignorance. To brutalize, is to make brutal. 
That slavery has exerted such an influence, where 
masters are cruel, or neglectful of the interests of 



72 DISCUSSION ON SLAYERT. 

their servants, cannot be denied — but the Corre- 
spondent maintains that this influence is inseparable 
from slavery ; that is, that every Christian man that 
holds slaves, brutalizes them — that he cannot hold 
them in slavery without brutalizing them. Why, 
Mr. Editor, it is perfectly palpable to every body ac- 
quainted with the state of things in the South, that 
those who have been in bondage longest, as a general 
thing, are least brutal^ and that those who have come 
to the country most recently^ are, in general, most 
brutal. The Correspondent admits that " many 
slaves are instructed in the precepts and principles 
of the gospel, and furnish evidence of piety." Is 
brutalizing inseparable from the influence exerted on 
these many ? I do not understand how a brutalizing, 
and converting, and sanctifjdng process, can go on 
together in the same persons. He admits that they 
are taught orally, but then he maintains that they 
are every one brutalized and enshrouded in igno- 
rance. Suppose I should show the Correspondent a 
slave that has more grace of manners than the ma- 
jority of graduates of our colleges, a man that can 
be trusted by his master to manage a great and com- 
plicated business, and to whose care he can safely con- 
fide the protection of his wife and daughters, both at 
home or in journeys, will he say that slavery has 
brutalized such a man? I can assure the Corre- 
spondent that I have had the happiness to know more 
than one, who is as far from being brutahzed, as 
Joseph was in Egypt, or Daniel in Babylon, by their 
bondage. And is shrouding the enslaved in igno- 
rance, inseparable from slavery ? If this means any 
thing, it means that a man cannot be in a state of 
slavery, and be taught at the same time. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 73 

Shrouding in ignorance is inseparahle from slavery ! 
Tgnorance insejoarable from slavery! Were the 
literati among the Roman slaves ignorant? Was 
the accomplished Terence made brutal and ignorant 
by slavery? Yet his master Terentius Lucanus, 
(who had the power of life and death over him,) 
gave Terence his elegant education. Plautus, too, 
one of the purest among the early Latin classics, was 
born and brought up in slavery. There are also 
hundreds in the South, that can read, and write, and 
cast interest. Is being enshrouded in ignorance in- 
separahle from a state of bondage ? Why, sir, the 
Correspondent knows from the moment that he re- 
flects on it, that he himself could advance a family 
of slaves in knowledge every month of their lives, if 
he held them, even under all the disadvantages of 
our American slave code. 

I deny that any master, but a wicked and unprin- 
cipled one, brutalizes his servants, or enshrouds them 
in ignorance. Every Christian man exerts an influ- 
ence of an opposite character. The assertion that 
such an influence of brutalizing and enshrouding in 
ignorance is inseparable from slavery, is a cruel accu- 
sation against hundreds of excellent Christian men, 
that are toilfully and successfully, though slowly, I 
admit, improving the intellectual and spiritual state 
of their poor slaves. 

Another evil which the Correspondent asserts to be 
inseparable from slavery, is the unlaioful control ivhich 
slaveholders exercise over the children of the enslaved. 
Mr. Editor, I do feel deeply the cut, inflicted by this 
paragraph of the Correspondent, upon thousands 
who are unj ustly accused by it. If the Correspond- 
ent had said that slavery gives a man the power to 



74 BISCr.'SSlON ON SLAVERY. 

act thus towards his slaves, I would not have ob- 
jected. But he maintains that all slaveholders exer- 
cise this cruelty — that it is inseparable from slaver}^ 
The questions propounded are most extraordinarj^ 
He refers to the Divine injunction to children to 
obey their parents, and gravely asks me " if masters 
do not nullify this command uniformly^ in the slave- 
holding States ?" Why, he might with as much pro- 
priety ask me if masters do not uniformly whip their 
slaves to death in the Southern States. 

He asks whether I " will pretend that children are 
permitted to obey their parents as God has enjoined it 
upon them ?" Why sir, the question is as insulting 
to many of our excellent Christian friends at the 
South, as it would be to the Correspondent to ask 
him if he would pretend that he himself permits his 
children to obey their mother. 

There is nothing in slavery that can prevent a 
Christian master from inculcating every precept of 
the gospel upon his servants. Every precept is in- 
culcated by the pious. Christian masters require it 
of the children of their servants^ to honour and 
obey their parents. They often require it of their 
own children, to obey the servants that have the care 
of them. — I must here narrate a little incident illus- 
trative of the feelings of many Southern Christians 
in respect to the deference which they often demand 
for worthy servants. I procured for a New England 
gentleman, a young man, the situation of family pre- 
ceptor, in a respectable family in Louisiana. After a 
time I inquired of the employer how he liked my 
young friend. He replied, ^^Very well, except in 
one thing ; he seems to be a fine scholar, and the 
children are fond of him." But. in what particular. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 75 

asked I, does lie not suit you? "Well," said he, 
" he does not seem to understand our domestic feel- 
ings ; he is not exactly as kind as he should be to all 
the family." IIow is that ? said I, he always seemed 
to me a man of very bland and amiable manners. 
" Well," said my friend, " so he is except in a single 
case. Our servant, old aunt Polly, has grown grey 
in the service of this family. She has been the 
mamma [nurse] of all my children, and we never 
allowed one of them to speak disrespectfully to her. 
She is an old saint, and we can't bear to see her 
abused." But what has he done ? How does he 
treat aunt Polly ? Yery bad ? inquired I. " Why, 
yes," says he, " he orders her about like a child, and 
asks her what she means by not having his room in 
order. It grieves her. We always say, please aunt 
Polly." 

Yet, this young man pocketed his $800 salary, 
which he had leceived in addition to his board, and 
returned to the North, and wrote back a letter to his 
pastor containing " scorching rebukes" for his not 
coming out and " reproving the sin of slavery," and 
that too, when he had remained in the same place a 
year without " reproving" it himself, or doing any- 
thing else bearing on the subject, except to grieve the 
heart of a pious family by speaking disrespectfully 
to a servant of excellent character ! Do you wonder, 
Sir, that such a man as that master should speak of 
abolitionists as " northern fanatics," when he sees in 
the paper, from the pen of a man of so much stand- 
ing and character as " the Correspondenc," a question 
like this — " Will he pretend that children are per- 
miited to obey their parents as God has enjoined it 
upon them?'' The insinuation that -'a child [in 



76 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

bondage] is not permitted to minister to a parent in 
sickness, or wipe the cold sweat of death from his 
brow," is unworthy of the Correspondent. I know 
he does not say that this \s> inseparable from slavery — • 
but why say, "7/' the master chooses to forbid these 
last offices of sympathy and affection." Would "the 
Correspondent" think it kind if one should say of a 
servant woman in his own family, that a child might 
not come and minister to her mother in sickness, or 
wipe the cold sweat of death from ]ier brow, if he 
the Correspondent chooses to forbid these last offices 
of sympathy and affection ? And yet, he ought to 
know that such an act is as likely to be perpetrated 
by himself, as by our Christian brethren at the 
South. 

Mr. Editor, I do deeply regret that the Correspond- 
ent has not left some opportunity for modifying his 
statements. But his declaration, that it is " inscpa- 
rahy^ from slavery, " that slave-holders exercise an 
unlawful control over the children of the enslaved," 
and the question (one of the strongest modes of as- 
serting a thing,) do not masters nullify this divine 
precept uniformly in the slave-holding States?" have 
put it out of his power to explain. He ought, in 
my opinion, to retract the charge. I know that the 
Correspondent is kind and charitable in his general 
character. He can doubtless say, that he has writ- 
ten hastily, that he has been imperceptibly drawn 
into such modes of speaking by an honest zeal 
against a hateful institution, but he will not abide by 
positions of a calumnious character against his Chris- 
tian brethren. A man may utter language that has 
all the influence of the basest calumny, without in- 
volving himself in the guilt of calumny. So I trust, 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 7-7 

and believe it is with tlie Correspondent. Tliere are 
hundreds of men, in the South, some of them min- 
isters of the gospel, and elders of our churches, who 
hold slaves, of whom, I am sure, he will not say on 
reflection, that it is insejjarahle from their slave-hold- 
ing that they brutalize their servants, enshroud them 
in ignorance, or refuse " to permit their children to 
obey their parents." He means it is inseparable 
from the slave-holding of very bad men. 

I do not allege that the Correspondent is culpable 
for saying what he has said of Southern men here, 
but I do say that he will he if he do not inform him- 
self of the state of facts. If he fears being hlinded 
and hardened by going and seeing for himself, let 
him inquire of those who have as much character as 
himself, and who have been eye witnesses, and he 
will learn that the things wdiich he has charged upon 
all slaveholders as inseparable from slavery, and as 
being uniformly practiced, are, like sin, everywhere 
else, practiced only by wicked men. Slavery is a 
great evil. Mr. Monroe, and Mr. Jefferson, and 
thousands of others anions: slave-holders do not think 
too badly of it. But, there are other evils. Among 
them, there is perhaps none more dangerous than the 
spirit of detraction. We look to good men like the 
Correspondent to counteract its influence. 

When the Correspondent brings forward one evil 
that is inseparable from slavery that is not equally 
inseparable from depraved human nature in other 
lawful relations, I Avill promise cheerfully to retract 
my position. 

O. R. MERIDIONUS. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 



[MR. ROOD.] 
TO " 0. R. MERIDIONUSy 

Mr. Editor : — Mj opponent ought surely by this 
time to be convinced, that I make a wide distinction 
between the system of slavery^ and those Christian 
brethren who feel its ponderous weight, and are 
struggling amidst the difficulties with which they are 
environed, to do the best they can in their unfortu- 
nate position. I have not uttered an unkind word 
in regard to them, but uniformly in this discussion 
expressed the sympathy which I sincerely feel for 
them, in their trying and difficult circumstances. 
"Meridionus" might have saved much time and 
strength which he has expended in his last commu- 
nication, in defence of brethren at the South, if he 
had called into exercise a reasonable share of dis- 
crimination, so as to have gained a clear apprehen- 
sion of the positions, which I endeavored to establish. 
As it is, he has certainly missed the mark in most 
that he has said. It will be recollected, that he call- 
ed on me to specify ^''barely one^^ evil that is in- 
separable from slavery. I responded to this b}^ say- 
ing, " one evil inseparable from slavery is hrutalizing 
the mindy and shrouding the enslaved in ignorance^ I 
admitted " that many slaves are instructed in the 
i^recepts and principles of the Gospel, and furnish 
evidence of piety." I knew full well that many 
Christian masters are careful and conscientious in im- 
parting knowledge to their servants, and this is clear- 



\y implied in the remark, ^' that many slaves are in- 
structed." Who did "Meridionus" suppose I in- 
tended as giving such instruction, but pious masters ? 
But such instances, and I rejoice there are so many, 
are exceptions to the general rule. Where there is 
one master, who labors for the intellectual and moral 
culture of his servants, are there not ten, fifteen, or 
twenty, who are indifferent or hostile to their mental 
improvement ? Let us look at some facts, and see if 
my position, which my opponent represents as untrue 
and slanderous, is not full}^ sustained. 

'' A law of South Carolina, passed in 1800, autho* 
rizes the infliction of twenty lashes on any slave 
found in an assembly con\ cned for the purpose of 
MENTAL iNSTRUCTiox, held in a confined or secret 
place, although in the presence of a white. Another 
law imposes a fine of one hundred dollars on any 
person who may teach a slave to write. An act of 
Virginia, of 1829, declares every meeting of slaves, 
at anjr school, by day or night, for instruction in 
reading or icritlng^ an unlawful assembly ; and any 
justice may inflict twenty lashes on esch slave found 
in such school." 

How slanderous it is, to say that slavery brutalizes 
i\\^ mind, and keeps its victims in ignorance ! But I 
have not done yet. In IN'orth Carolina, " to teach a 
slave to read or lorite^ or to sell or give him any book, 
(the Bible not excepted,) or pamphlet, may be 
punished with thirty-nine lashes, or imprisonment, if 
the offender be a free negro ; but if a white, then 
with a fine of two hundred dollars." Would the 
reader know why this severity for an act which would 
be commended in a free State ? The preamble to the 
law assigns the rea^^on. Mark it, my good friend, 



sO LISCUSSION ON SLATERY. 

'^ Meridionus," ponder, and inwardly digest it — 
" TeacJiing slaves to read and write^ tends to excite dissa- 
iisfaction in their minds^ and to 'produce insurrection and 
rebellion^ A law was enacted in Greorgia, in 1829, 
to wit, "If a Avliite teach a free negro or slave to 
I'ead or Avrite, he shall be fined five hundred dollars, 
and imprisoned at the discretion of the court ; if the 
oft'ender be a colored man, bond or free, he shall be 
fined or whipped at the discretion of the court." In 
Louisiana, the penalty on the statute book, if it has 
not been recently repealed, for teaching slaves to read 
or write, is one year's imprisonment. 

I pass now to the testimony of ecclesiastical bodies. 
The Synod of Kentucky have recorded their tes- 
timony as follows : " Slavery dooms thousands of 
human beings to hopeless ignorance. Throughout 
the State, so far as Ave can learn, there is but one 
school in which, during the week, slaves can be 
taught. Here and there a family is found, where 
humanity and religion impel the master, mistress, or 
children, to the laborious task of private instruction. 
But after all, what is the utmost amount of instruc- 
tion given to slaves? Those who enjoy the most of 
it, are fed but with the crumbs of knowledge which 
fall from their master's table. The impression is al- 
most universal," (mark it, my good friend,) " that 
intellectual elevation unfits men for servitude, and 
renders it impossible to retain tliein in this condition. 
Hence, in some of our States, laws have been enact- 
ed, prohibiting, under severe penalties, the instruc- 
tion of the blacks ; and even where such laws do not 
exist, there are formidahle numbers^ who oppose with 
deep hostility every effort to enlighten the mind of the 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY, 81 

negror Had tlie Synod of Kentucky any doubt in 
regard to the brutalizing influence of slavery ? 

The Eev. Dr. Xelson, born and educated in Ten- 
nessee, and till forty years old a slaveholder, says. 
" I have been asked concerning the religious instruc- 
tion of slaves ; and I feel safe in answering, that in 
general it amounts to little or nothing. Hundreds 
and thousands never heard of a Savior ; and of those 
who are familiar with his name, few have any com- 
prehension of its meaning. I remember one grey- 
headed negro, with whom I tried to talk concerning 
his immortal soul. I pointed to the hills, and told 
him God made them. He said he did not believe 
anybody made the hills. I asked another slave about 
Jesus Christ. I found he had heard his name, but 
he thought he was the son of the Governor of Ken- 
tucky." 

The Eev. Charles C. Jones preached a sermon, in 
1831, before two associations of planters in Georgia, 
in which he says : " Generally speaking, the slaves 
appear to us to be without God and without hope in 
the world — A nation of heathens in our very 
midst. We cannot cry out against the Papists for 
withholding the Scriptures from the common people, 
and keeping them in ignorance of the way of life ; 
for we withhold the Bible from our servants, and ^ee/.^ 
them in ignorance of it, while we luill not use the means 
to have it read and explained to them. The cry of 
our perishing servants comes up to us from the sultry 
plains, as the}^ bend to their toil — it comes up to us 
from their humble cottages, when they return at 
evening to rest their weary limbs — it comes up to us 
from the midst of their ignorance, and superstition, 
an.d adultery and lewdness." And yet, " there is not 
4* 



S'4 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

one evil in slavery^ that is not equally inseparable from 
depraved human nature in other LAWFUL RELA- 
TIONS." " Meridionus " holds on to this, as if it were 
his life. 

In 1833, the Synod of South Carolina and Georgia 
made the following record: "From long continued 
and close observation, we believe that the moral and re- 
ligious condition of slaves is such, that they may justly 
be considered the heathen of this Christian country, 
and will bear comparison with heathen in any country 
in the world." Why does not my opponent reprove 
these Southern brethren for ^''detractions'''' which he 
justly represents as a crying sin! I think if I am 
arraigned on this charge, I shall be found in a very 
numerous and respectable company. A correspond- 
ent of the Church Advocate^ published at the time in 
Kentuck}', saj^s : " The poor negroes are left in the 
ways of spiritual darkness — no efforts are being 
made for their enlightenment — no seed is being sown 
in this portion of the Lord's vineyard — here nothing 
but a moral wilderness is seen, over which the soul 
sickens, and the heart of Christian sympathy bleeds. 
Here nothing is presented but a moral waste, as ex- 
tensive as our influence, as appalling as the valley of 
death." If my limits would permit, I could furnish 
a mass of additional testimony of the same general 
bearing. 

Now, my opponent is bound to do ofte of two 
things : either to show that this testimony is irrelevant 
or untrue, or admit that my position is fully sustained. 
I shall not accept general statements of denial, or be 
diverted from the point at issue by the charge of 
*' detraction." " Meridionus " must meet^ and set aside 
this testimony, or confess that he is rnrong, and that I am 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY 83 

rights It is preposterous for a man who lias resided 
in Kichmond, or Charleston, or New Orleans, and 
mingled with refined and genteel circles, to pretend 
that he has seen slavery as it is, and is qualified to 
give a fair representation of its atrocities, as they are 
generally exhibited. 

A writer in the Charleston (S. C.) Observer said : 
*'Let us establish missionaries among our own ne- 
groes, who, in view of religious knowledge, are as 
debasingiy ignorant as any one on the coast of Africa ; 
for I hazard the assertion, that throughout the bounds 
of our Synod, there are at least one hundred thousand 
slaves, speaking the same language as ourselves, who 
never heard of the plan of salvation by a Redeemer." 
The Editor, instead of contradicting this broad asser- 
tion, adds : " We fully concur with what our corre- 
spondent has said, respecting the benighted heathen 
among ourselves." 

With testimony like this, and a great amount of 
similar character, the conviction is forced upon my 
mind, that the knowledge of my opponent, of the 
customs and usages of the South, is extremely limit- 
ed and superfi-cial. I do not believe that he inten- 
tionally misrepresents the state of things there. 
Certainly not. He is a man of character, and con- 
science, and truth. But he is mistaken, and does not 
understand the things whereof he affirms. In his 
zeal for the South, he has lost sight of his usual dis- 
cretion, and committed himself to the defence of 
positions, which every body must see are utterly un- 
tenable. 

My second specification of the evils inseparable 
from slaverj^, respects the " unlawful control which 
slave-holders exercise over the children of the en- 



84 DISCUSSION ON SLAYERY. 

slaved." M}^ opponent professes to be deeply grieved 
by this representation. He says, " I do feel deeply 
the cut, inflicted by this paragraph of the Corre- 
spondent, upon thousands who are unjustly accused 
by it." 

The Kev. Mr. Barnes in his admirable work on sla- 
very, sustains by a triumphant argument, the views 
I have expressed. He says, " Slavery interferes 
with the natural right which a father has over his 
children. This results from the nature oi property im- 
plied in the relation. The primary and the controlling 
notion is, that the child is owned by the master, not 
that he is placed under the control and authority of 
his father. The master, not the father, is supreme. 
.... The father is displaced from the position 
where God has assigned him, and the master is sub- 
stituted in his place .... Children, all children 
are to honor their father and mother, are to obey 
their parents in all things^ Ex. 20 : 12, Col. 3 : 20. 
"Now it is impossible," says Mr. Barnes, " to secure 
the discharge of these duties under the s3'Stem of 
slavery. The father's own time is not at his disposal ; 
he is at liberty to select and appoint no hours when 
he will instruct his children ; he has no right to de- 
signate any time when he will even pray with his 
family ; and the whole business of ' providing for his 

own,' is entirely taken out of his hands The 

law of God is perhaps still more entirely nuUiiied in 
regard to the duty which the child owes to its parent. 
Here it is impossible for him to obey the command of 
God requiring subjection to his parent, if the will of 
the master comes in conflict with his. It is not de- 
signed that the father shall be obeyed. The master 
has the absolute authority, and has the right to coun- 



DISCUSSION ON SLAYERY, 85 

teract any of the requirements of tlie father 

The spirit of the whole institution is, not that the 
father is be obeyed, but the master ; and if the father 
is not obeyed, the law lends no help to secure the re- 
spect and obedience of the child. The law has dis- 
placed the father from the position which God gave 
him, and has substituted the authority of another." 

I asked a gentleman born and educated at the South 
if my statement was not supported by facts ? He re- 
plied, it could not be contradicted that masters have 
the absolute control of the children of the enslaved 
— that they could sell them, and in all respects, when 
the wishes of the master and those of the parent 
come in conflict, the will of the master is paramount. 
I can produce any amount of testimony confirming 
this statement. " Meridionus " will not deny that tho 
laws on this subject are decidedly wrong and shield 
unprincipled masters in the practice of flagrant enor- 
mities. I did not say that Christian masters used the 
power lodged in their hands as they are authorized to 
use it. I was speaking of the ivrongfulness of the 
SYSTEM OF SLAVERY. I admit most freely, that there 
are many kind, humane masters, who are striving to 
do the best they can in the circumstances in which 
they are placed. But the system in its spirit and gen- 
eral operation is hostile to the great principles of cha- 
rity and Christian benevolence, and naturally and al- 
most necessarily leads the masters to assume preroga- 
tives in respect to the children of the enslaved, which 
are the exclusive privilege of parents. I see no rea- 
son, therefore, to recall what I said on this point. 
Mjr language was sufficiently guarded. I spoke of 
the uniform^ not the universal practice of slave-holders. 
The case of " aunt Polly" does not, in my judgment, 



■86 DISCUSSIu^' ON riLAVKRY. 

require any modification of my statement. She was 
a very good woman, I have no doabt, and had a very 
kind master, but this has very httle to do with the 
system of slavery in its general operation. 

My third specification of the evils of slavery w^as 
this, to wit: "While the system is maintained, mas- 
ters cannot render to their servants thai which is just a>nd 
equal. The nature of the system forbids this on the 
broad scale which Christianity requires." Not a word 
of reply is made to this position. I shall take it for 
granted, therefore, that this point is conceded. I re- 
joice in this fresh proof of the honesty and integrity 
of my opponent. He is too conscientious to deny the 
truth, although it bears with tremendous power against 
himself I am greatly encouraged by this feature of 
the candor and self-sacrificing spirit w^hich he has 
exhibited. He is determined to carry out the prin- 
ciple, 

" Fiat justitia, ruat coelum," 

whatever may be the fate of his theories and posi- 
tions. This is right, and it will command and secure 
the respect of all intelligent, honorable men. Hence- 
forth, it will be understood that all our discussions 
will be conducted on the conceded point that " while 
the system of slavery is maintained, masters cannot 
render to their servants that ivhich is just and equals 

I will notice one or two other points before I close. 
*' Meridionus" says, " Suppose I should show the Cor- 
respondent a slave that has more grace of manners 
than the majority of graduates of our colleges, a man 
that can be trusted by his master to manage a great 
and complicated business, and to whose care he can 
safely confide the protection of his wife and daugh- 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 87 

ters/* &c. My opponent wishes to know if I regard 
such a man as brutalized ? Perhaps not. But this I 
will say, to wit : — I think it is a burning shame to 
hold such a man as a *' chattel personal," and put 
him up in the market like a brute beast. 1 should 
be ashamed to treat a man of such capabilities with 
such indignity and glaring injustice. " Meridionus" 
endeavors to shift a fair iuference from a position he 
had laid down so as to make me responsible for it. 
This is not exactly a just method of conducting an ar- 
gument. He said, "if he [the master] rules with the 
gentleness and benevolence of a perfectly holy being, 
yet if he rules absolutely over his servant, the essen- 
tial elements of slavery are there." I replied to this, 
that " good men and angels are under the absolute 
control of God ; but according to this doctrine, in- 
stead of being the ' freemen of the Lord,' they are 
bond-slaves. An argument that leads to such revolt- 
ing conclusions is worse than a mere abstraction. I 
leave our readers to give it a name." And now for- 
sooth, he charges the abominable doctrine on me that 
God must be a slave-holder, because he says, no 
" man can deny, with the least show of plausibility, 
that slave-holders do exercise absolute power." This 
is going a little farther than I can patiently endure. 
The statement of " Meridionus" that " if the master 
rules with the gentleness and benevolence of a per- 
fectly holy being, yet if he rules absolutely over his 
servant, the essential elements of slavery are there," 
is preposterous and absurd. In showing its absur- 
dity, it will not do for him to attempt to fasten an in- 
ference upon me which is chargeable exclusively upon 
his own unwarranted position. I will, in a word, 
place this matter in it.«; true light. Christ is " Head 



88 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

over all things to the Church." He is King in Zion, 
and rules supremely and absolutely over his people. 
Bat are the "essential elements of slavery" there? 
No, verily, for "whom the Son maketh free, he is 
free indeed." The absolute control of Christ insures 
perfect liberty. But there is another kind of absolute 
control which comprises "the elements of slavery" 
in all their terrific forms. This is exercised by the 
" Prince of the power of the air, the Spirit that now 
worketh in the children of disobedience." He leads 
his servants " captive at his will," and binds them 
with chains of eternal fire. He is the great slave- 
holder of the universe, and good men like " Me- 
ridionus" ought to be very cautious not to enlarge 
his vast dominion, or increase his cruel power. 

THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. T. EVANGELIST. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 89 



[dr. PARKER.] 
ABE THE EVILS OF SLA VERY INSEPARABLE FROM IT? 

Mr. Editor : — It is not improbable that many of 
your readers may be weary of the controversy be- 
tween myself and " the Correspondent." It is but 
right that my opponent should speak last in the de- 
bate. I will therefore take such a course in this 
article as shall give him a fair opportunity to close 
the discussion, on the following week. I shall not 
reply again, nnless strongly urged by the nature of 
the Correspondent's next communication. 

I consider that there are two questions of great 
consequence, in respect to the moral right or wrong 
of slavery. One is, Has a State a right to make and 
sustain such a system of laws as exist in the South- 
ern part of our confederacy ? The other is. Is it 
right for an individual to retain a human being in 
bondage ? With the first question, I have had 
nothing to do in this discussion. I have raised no 
inquiry with respect to the duty of any political or- 
ganization as such. 

I have spoken only on the question of the moral 
character of the individual slave-holder. I have 
maintained that a man's holding slaves does not im- 
ply that he is living in sin — that if he is guilty of 
wrong towards his servants, he is not necessarily guilty 
— that it is possible for him to discharge his duty 
towards his servants in such a way that he shall have 
as clear a conscience towards them and towards God, 



■90 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

as a good parent can have in respect to his children. 
I admit that servants are more liable to be wronged 
bj their masters than children are bj their parents, 
but I maintain that the ivronging of servants is not 
inseparable from holding them in bondage. 

This position the Correspondent has undertaken to 
disprove. He allows, indeed, that a man may hold 
the legal relation while making arrangements to eman- 
cipate^ or at the request of his servants for protection, 
and that in such a case he is not guilty, because he 
is not a voluntary slave-holder. I admit the justness 
of his distinction here. 

But on this pointy (and this is the only point) he 
joins issue with me. He maintains that one man's 
holding another in bondage is prima facie evidence 
that he is a wicked man — that a man cannot hold a 
slave voluntarily (that is without any purpose of 
emancipating him,) and not inflict upon his slave 
grievous wrongs. 

Now, let it be observed, that all that the Corre- 
spondent has said on the system and the laws has no 
relevancy to the subject. 

Nearly all his arguments have gone to prove either, 
that the State has made laws that oppress the slave, 
or that bad masters use their servants cruelly. In 
his last communication but one, it is true, he came 
to the point and met it fairly. — He undertook to 
prove that the following evils were inseparable from 
holding slaves. That all real voluntary slave-holders 
are guilty of these wrongs. 

1. They are guilty of brutalizing their slaves^ and 
enshrouding them in ignorance. 

2. They uniformly exercise an milawful control over 
the children of the enslaved. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 91 

8. That tfiey are guilty of not rendering to their slaves 
that vjhich is jusi and equal. 

Let it be remembered, that these statements are 
made, not respecting men that are peculiarly cruel 
and unprincipled. The question is not whether bad 
men treat their slaves badly — these are the thiugs 
which he maintains are inseparable from slavery — the 
things of which masters at the South are uniformly 
guilty. Now, I assert that there are many hundreds 
of slave-holders — I mean voluntary slave-holders — 
men who have inherited plantations stocked with 
slaves — who have no plan for emancipating, but who 
expect to transmit them to their heirs, and yet they 
are excellent Christian men, and are not guilty of 
one of the sins specified. They do not hrutalize one of 
their servants. They do not enshroud one in ignorance. 
They do not exercise an unlawful control over the 
children of the slaves, or refuse to permit them to obey 
their oiun parents. They do not hesitate to obey the 
Apostle's injunction, to render to them what is just 
and equal. 

I assert that the Correspondent has not substan- 
tiated these charges, and for proof, I refer the reader 
to his communication of February 5th. He has made 
the charges there, but without proof that can satisfy 
any thinking mind. If he had said that unprincipled 
men do these things, and that the State is culpable 
for permitting it^for not restraining them — it would 
be a different thing ; but he maintains that these 
things are inseparable from holding slaves — and that 
Southern slave-masters are uniformly guilty of them. 

Mr. Editor, I am glad that the views of the Cor- 
respondent are before the public. I only ask that his 
arguments, so far as the}^ relate to the subject, may 



92 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY, 

be looked at, and that our readers will remember, 
that all he has said of slave laws, and of the cruelty 
of cruel masters, has nothing to do with any question 
between us ; and that so far as such representations 
have a tendency to draw men's minds away from the 
point — as if he were opposing slavery, as a system, 
and I were its advocate — they are palpably unjust. 
The power of reproof is a mighty power, in remov- 
ing great systems of wrong — but nothing is more 
mischievous in its influence, than misplaced censure. 
It is misplaced, in my opinion; and the bitterest 
evils are inflicted, when all slave-holders are accused 
of the three wrongs specified by the Correspondent. 

The closing allusion, in the Correspondent's last 
communication, to Satan as a slave-holder, if it were 
of any consequence, might be retorted. Satan has 
no involuntary servants. He is an abolitionist, and 
an "accuser of the brethren." 

0. R. MERIDIONUS. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 93 



[MR. ROOD.] 

TO " 0. E. MERIDIONUS:' 

Mr. Editor : — There are but two or three pomts 
in the last communication of my opponent, Avhich re- 
quire notice. I shall dispose of these with great 
brevity. I am not surprised he should enter his 
caveat against being regarded as the apologist and 
defender of slavery. I have not charged this great 
wrong upon him. I have examined the princi^iles 
and iwsitions he has laid down, and left our readers 
to draw their own inferences. One thing is quite 
certain, to wit, the subversion of the system of slavery 
does not enter into his plan. Hear Avhat he says : 
" I assert that there are many hundreds of slave- 
holders, I mean voluntary slave-holders, men who 
have inherited plantations stocked with slaves, who 
have no plan of emancipating, but who expect to 
transmit them to their heirs ; and yet they are ex- 
cellent Christian men, and are not guilty of one of 
the sins specified." Well, if this be so, the system 
will be perpetuated without doubt. And if voluntary 
slave-holders can be excellent Christian men, and 
have no plan of emancipating^ and no desire to eman- 
cipate, but continue to transmit their slaves to their 
heirs — it is all the system needs, to defend it from 
the assaults of its opponents. Did " Meridionus" 
see the bearing of this paragraph, when he penned 
it ? Did he reflect on the necessary inference it sug- 
gests, in regard to his estimate of the system of sla- 



94 DISCUSSION OX SLAVERY. 

very ? My views of the system have been freely and 
frankly expressed, and I cheerfully submit them to 
the judgment of our readers. In respect to the re- 
tort, that " Satan has no involuntary servants ; that 
he is an abolitionist, and an accuser of the brethren" 
— I have one or two inquiries to make. Abolition- 
ists, whether their views are right or wrong, insist 
upon emancipation, as a fundamental principle of 
their creed. But when or where has Satan done 
anything to strike off the chains of servitude, and 
give liberty to his captives ? What continent, king- 
dom, island, or tribe, has been blest by his agency ? 
'' An accuser of the brethren !" True, indeed, he is. 
But they are such men as Wilberforce and Clarkson, 
and their co-adjutors, who have fought manfully the 
battle of human rights. But I must not dwell on 
these things. I have a more important object to ac- 
complish in this communication. 

My opponent has laid down two or three positions, 
which are such precious specimens of logic and 
learning, that I feel bound to invite the special atten- 
tion of our readers to their consideration. They are 
the following : " Slavery is a term by which the relation 
of two parties is indicated. The slaves are one party ^ 
the masters are the other J^ " Slave-holding is the exer- 
cising of a power of one mind over another absolutely^ 
and in certain circumstances ^ " What are the evils of 
slavery ? There is not one that is not equally insepar- 
able from depraved human nature in other laivful rela- 
tionsy I have said something of these positions be- 
fore, but they deserve a more distinct and formal 
notice. If true, they throw a flood of light upon 
the world, and ought to be proclaimed with trumpet- 
tongue to all the habitations of men. If true, they 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVKRT. 95 

amount to nothing less than a quick and easy method 
of banishing all sin from the universe. We have all 
been groping in the dark. We have been laboring 
in the slow way which the Gospel points out, to get 
rid of moral evil. Slavery has long been regarded 
by multitudes as a great evil and a great sin, and 
many prayers have been offered up for the subversion 
of the system. But if my opponent represents it 
truly, it is far from being the hideous enormity which 
men have supposed. " It is a term by which the re- 
lation of two parties is indicated." Apply this to 
other things, and how differently do they appear 
from what we had vainly imagined ! Idolatry, for 
instance — what is that? It is a term by which the 
relation of two parties is indicated. The idolaters 
are one party — the idols are the other. Our mission- 
aries tell us of infanticide and patricide, and the 
burning of widows, and the self-tortures of devotees. 
But if " Meridionus" is right in his philosophy, these 
are not " part and parcel of the thing." They are 
only " circumstances that may be separated from" 
idolatry. Point out one that cannot. Cannot infan- 
ticide ? — There are thousands of heathen parents, 
who do not murder their children. Cannot patricide ? 
The Chinese are exceedingly kind to their parents. 
Cannot the burning of widows ? Are not the Brit- 
ish abolishing this in India ? Cannot the self-tortures 
of devotees ? Many of the heathen do not practice 
them. 

Take another example. What is drunkenness ? 
Much has been said about it, of late years, but with 
how little relevancy, the definition of " Meridionus" 
will show. It would have saved Dr. Beecher a great 
part of his labor, in writing his celebrated "Six Ser- 



96 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

mons," if he had apprehended that drunkenness is 
nothing more than " a term by which the relation of 
two parties is indicated." The drunkards are one 
party, the manufacturers and venders of intoxicating 
drinks are the other. Let not Messrs. Barnes, and 
Chambers, and Brainerd, and Thompson, pubHsh ad- 
dresses, and make speeches, about the evils of intem- 
perance. Away, gentlemen, with your stories about 
the crimes induced by intemperance ; the misery and 
pauperism, and orphans and widows, that follow in 
its train. These are not ''part and parcel of the 
thing." They are only " circumstances which may 
be separated from it." Which of them cannot? 
Have not men been drunkards, without committing 
robbery or murder? Have not men filled drunk- 
ards' graves, who had no widows or orphans to leave 
behind ? And what is robbery ? Mr. Webster de- 
fines it to be, "the forcible and felonious taking of 
money, goods, &c." The law books speak of it in 
the same way. But they have committed an egre- 
gious blunder. "It is a term by which the relation 
of two parties is indicated." The robber is one party, 
the man robbed is the other. There are, it is true, 
many circumstances connected with robbery, which 
we may unite in deploring, and wishing they were 
otherwise, "almost as much as the robbers do them- 
selves :" Such are, the forcible entrance into houses, 
the alarming of families, the tying them in their 
beds, or standing over them with loaded pistols, and 
taking away from them their means of support. But 
these are not "part and parcel of the thing." Which 
of them cannot be separated from it ? Cannot the 
entering into houses ? Certainly it can. A man 
may be knocked down on the street, and robbed. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 97 

Cimnot the tying tliem in bed, or standing over tliem 
with loaded pistols? Undoubtedly. Cannot the 
taking awa}^ the means of their support ? Assuredly. 
Many a family has been robbed of much valuable 
plate and jewelry, who still had enough to live 
upon.'^ 

The slave-trade, what is that ? It has been pro- 
nounced piracy, and is punished as such. But after 
all, if the position of Meridionus is sound, it is a. 
mere " term by which the relation of two parties is 
indicated." The captured Africans are one party, 
the traders in human flesh are the other. It is not 
denied that there are some unhappy circumstances 
connected with this branch of business. Such is the 
tearing asunder of family ties on the coast of Africa; 
the confining them in the hold of the slave-ship in. 
such numbers ; the want of pure air and wholesome 
food, and of space to stand erect, or even to lie. But 
these are not "part and parcel of the thing," as Wil- 
berforce and Clarkson supposed. Is it not plain that 
these circumstances may every one of them be 
separated from the trade ? Cannot the sundering of 
family bonds on the coast of Africa ? Certainly, by 
taking the whole family. Cannot the crowded hold ? 
Yes : by simply carrying a smaller number. Cannot 
the want of wholesome food ? No one will deny it. 
Thus, by a stroke we get rid of most of the evils in 
the world, and why not the whole ? Cannot the 
thing be exhibited to the universal conviction of 
mankind by a series of syllogisms ! Thus : — 



* Does my opponent say that Idolatry, and Drunkenness, and 
Robbery, are sins per se ? And is not the sij^tcm of Slavcri/ 
one of fraud, injustice, and cruel oppression, abhorrent to God 
and to all rio;ht-minded men ''. 



98 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

There is no sin in abstract terms. 
Slavery is an abstract term ; 
Therefore there is no sin in slavery. 
There is no sin in abstract terms. 
Idolatry is an abstract term ; 
Tliereforc there is no sin in idolatry. 

But it seems that slave-] lolding is not exactly the 
same thing that slavery is. Still it is an abstraction, 
and a very harmless one, — Hear Meridionus. " Slave- 
holding is the exercising of a power of one mind 
over another absolutely, and in certain circum- 
stances." — Such is the divine government^ snch is the 
parental, and such are all human governments. 
There is nothing wrong in this surely. The views 
of Washington and Jefferson, and Patrick Henry, 
and John Jay, and Wm. Pinkney, of the abomina- 
tions of slave-holding are all exploded. It is clear 
they did not understand the nature of the subject. 
They onlj' knew it in the concrete ; we in the ab- 
stract. They looked at it only in its actual workings ; 
we " treat it ethicalty." 

But query ; — would not this definition apply to 
the matters we have considered above, and thus 
doubly fortifj^ the position we have taken in regard 
to them ? Would it not apply to the slave-trade ? 
Is not that the " exercising of a power of one mind 
over another absolute^, and in certain circum- 
stances ?" Would it not apply to highway robbery ? 
Is not that the " exercising of a power of one mind 
over another absolutely, and in certain circum- 
stances?" Would it not apply to murder? Is not 
that the " exercising of a power of one mind over 
another absolutely, and in certain circumstances ?" 
Now, let us frame another syllogism, and see how 
the matter will stand. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 99 

The exercising of a power of one mind over another 

absolutely, 
And in certain circumstances, is not sin. 
But the slave-trader, the robber, and the murderer 

exercise such a power absolutely in certain 

circumstances ; 
Therefore, the slave-trade, robbery and murder are 

not sins. 

But it is acknowledo-ed that there are some circum- 

o 

stances connected with each of these things which 
are evils, and which it would be desirable to get rid 
of. Well, so far as the evils of slavery are concern- 
ed, Lleridionus finds but little difficulty. Hear him. 
— '' There is not one evil in slavery that is not equally 
insepa,raUe from depraved liuma.n nature in other LAW^- 
FUL RELATIONS." We havc then but to look at other 
lawful relations to see how little trouble any one need 
give himself in regard to the coatinuance and exten- 
sion of the system. The marriage relation, and the 
parental, are lawful relations, but slavery is just as 
innocent as thej^ are, and there is not one evil con- 
nected with it that is not equally inseparable from 
either of them. How foolish and wicked it would be 
to abolish the marriage relation on account of the 
evils that are at present connected with it ! And 
equally foolish and wicked is it to wish to do away 
with slavery, which is a lawful relation, and very 
good with the exception of some circumstances which 
are not " part and parcel of the thing." So also, 
partners in business sustain lawful relations, but ac- 
cording to the doctrine of Meridionus, there is " not 
one evil in slavery that is not equally inseparable" 
from all business partnerships. Pastors and their 
churches sustain lawful relations, but according to my 
cpDonent, " there is not one evil in slavery that is 



iOO DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

not equally inseparable" from the relation of pastor 
and people. The American Board unites many friends 
of missions in lawful relations, but Meridionus stakes 
his reputation as a logician and Christian philosopher 
on the asseveration that there is not one evil in slavery 
that is not equally inseparable from the American 
Board, 

His argument seems to be this : — there is nothing 
wrong in slavery itself. It is, divested of a few cir- 
cumstances, morally good and excellent. It is in 
harmony with Christianity and the law of love ; and 
so it seems that the toiling captives are to breathe the 
pure atmosphere of the millennial morning. Let no 
one say, these are unwarranted and unjust inferences. 
I ask any man to look at the positions Meridionus 
has laid down, especially the last, on which I have 
commented, and pass judgment between us. I never 
sought this controvers}', or anticipated being drawn 
into it, but forced to defend myself, I have done it 
with what leisure from pressing duties I could com- 
mand. 

THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAYERY. 101 



[dr. PARKER.] 
REPLY TO THE ''CORRESPONDENT;' &c. 

Mr. Editor : — I intimated to you in my last that 
I should not reply to the Correspondent again, unless 
strongly urged by the nature of his next communi- 
cation. 

The chief thing that induces me to take up my 
pen again, is the fact that the Correspondent has 
chosen to invite it by going back to a ground once 
jjassed over in respect to the use of the term slavery. 
It seems to trouble him very greatly that the Avord 
should be regarded as expressive of any sort of re- 
lationship between two parties. I have replied to 
his remarks about a " fe^??^" before, but it seems he 
is not satisfied, though, I have no doubt, he was 
completely satisfied at the time. Let it not be for- 
gotten then that I defined the word slavery in the 
following language, viz. : — " Slavery is a term hy 
ivhicli the relation of two 'parties is indicated. The 
slaves are one party^ the masters are the other. The 
State is not a party in the rekUion. A State w,ay hold 
slaves^ hut in the condition of things of icMch we speah.^ 
in this country^ individual citizens hold slaves. Bui^ 
whoever Tiray hold slaves^ slavery is neither ' a righH 
nor ' an assumed right J nor ' a claimed right.'' Slave- 
ry as expressive of the condition of the subordinate party ^ 
is the absolute subjection of slaves to their masters. 
Whether it is coyisistent with their rights that th-ey should 
he under this subjection or not is a distinct question. 



102 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

Slaves are in absolute subjection to their masters. Slave- 
ry as expressive of the condition of the superior party ^ is 
the holding of slaves^ the exercising of the power that 
keeps them in absolute subjection. Whether it be right 
for a master to hold slaves in absolute subjection is a. dis- 
tinct question.''^ 

This is the question between us. I maintain that 
there 7nay be — that there are many excellent Chris- 
tian men that hold slaves, who yet are not guilty of 
tlie sins which the Correspondent charges on all vol- 
untary slaveholders. 

Now, how has the Correspondent met this j)lain 
account of slavery ? Not by pointing out any one 
thing left out of this description as a thing necessa- 
rily belonging to slavery. Not by showing that any- 
thing is included in the definition that does not al- 
ways belong to slavery ? Nothing of the kind. He 
has intimated that I have represented slavery as being- 
nothing but '' a term.'''' Instead of showing that the 
relation between the two parties is not fairly describ- 
ed, or that the relation implies injustice in one of the 
parties, he affects to treat the wdiole matter as if a 
relation between two parties could be of no sort of 
consequence. Why does he not show that every man 
that holds slaves is guilty of a wrong ? He com- 
23ares the holding of slaves with ^^ Idolatry ^^^ and 
"Drunkenness" and "Robbery" and "Murder," and 
maintains that the evils that belong to these are 
"part and parcel of the thing," and that just so the 
evils incidental to slavery are " part and parcel of 
the thing." 

He then challenges me to point out one evil that 
cannot be separated from " Idolatry." So he asks of 
Drunkenness and " Robbery," and "Murder." Why, 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 103 

Mr. Editor, what can the Correspondent mtend by 
such questions ? I am afraid some of your readers 
will think that I am writing in the name of the Cor- 
respondent, and asking these questions to bring his 
cause into contempt. The inquiries so plainly de- 
mand an ans\Yer directly o\'er against the Correspon- 
dent's argument, that it reminds one of the parody 
on Phillips. — " The Flagrant and Chromatic tea, does 
it not come from Africa ? And the coffee, does it 
not come from China ?" Let me assure you, Mr. Edi- 
tor, that I have had nothing to do knowingly with 
leading the Correspondent to place himself in such 
an attitude before his readers. What one sin cannot 
be separated from idolatrj^ ? This is his question in 
effect. Why the worshiping of false gods cannot be 
separated from it. Does the Correspondent wish 
proof that such worship is wicked? 

What sin cannot be separated from drunkenness ! 
— why, the sin of drunkenness. What from robber}^ 
and murder ! W^hy the sin of robbing and murder- 
ing. These are all crimes in themselves — always 
crimes. 

Idolatry is tlie violation of the lirst commandment 
directly. Drunkenness, we are expressly told by 
revelation, excludes from heaven. " Kor drunkards 
shall enter into the kingdoin of God.'' Eobbery is 
forbidden in the law which says, Thou shalt not steal ; 
and murder is opposed to the prohibition which says. 
" Thou shalt do no murder.'' There is no law, no]^ 
precept, that prohibits the holding of a slave — yet 
the Garrison Scliool put these things on the same 
footing. 

In conclusion, I beg leave to call tlie attention of 
the Correspondent to a few of his positions. 



104 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

He maintains tliat slavciy is not a sin per se, and 
yet that it is " W22fn'?2sica% wrong." lie says, "The 
doctrine that slavery is pe?' se sinful, is untrue, and 
has done a vast amount of mischief." Yet he main- 
tains, that " Slavery is, whenever a human being, 
without a^ime alleged, is robbed of his inalienable 
rights ;" that it is "a bartering awaj^ rights which the 
law of God never gave to man," and that it ought to 
be " denounced as intrinsicalli/ wrong , opj)ressive, a,nd 
vnckedy Which of these contradictory statements 
would he have.his readers believe? 

He alleges that ^^ some, perhaps one in a hundred, 
or in a thousand, hold slaves in harmony with the 
great law of love." Yet " slavery is when a man is 
robbed of his inalienable rights" — and that the rela- 
tion of slavery is " unlaAvful and oppressive." He 
says, that " some hold slaves in harmony with the 
law of love." And 3'et, in the case of the slave- 
holder, " you must bring him away from the influ- 
ence of slavery, before he can in cdl respects, if I may 
so speak, fulfil the law of love." May so speak ! 
He may speak in any language he chooses, but he 
cannot require of his readers to be so stupid, as not 
to see the contradiction of such statements. 

He says, " I do not deny that cruelty of treatment, 
where it exists, may be corrected." Yet he main- 
tains that all slave-holders are guilty of hrutalking 
their slaves, and enshrouding them in ignorance — 
that they " uniformly" exercise an unlawful control 
over the chiklren of the enslaved, and that they are 
guilty of cruelty, withholding from their ^^oor slaves 
" that which is just and equal." 

These cruelties, he admits, may he corrected — j^et he 
avers that they are inseparahle from holding skxves, 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 105 

and that Southern masters are " uniformly" guilty of 
them. He says that the doctrine that slavery is per 
se sinful, is untrue — but that " the system of slavery 
is a sin per se." What ? The holding of slaves is not 
a sin p)er se^ and the system of slavery is a sin per se. 
The sj'stem of slavery is a sin per se ! ! Who per- 
petrates it? This is really one of the last discove- 
ries that have been made. It is not the giving a lo- 
cal habitation or a name to a new planet — but it is 
discovering a new sin. It ought to be put doAvn in 
the list of crimes, something like this — felony, arson, 
murder, '' the system of slavery," drunkenness, and 
such like. But who commits this sin ? For it is a 
sin 2')er se. Not the slave-holder, for the Correspond- 
ent informs us that holding slaves is not a sin p)er se. 
Who is guilty of the s}- stem ? Somebody must be 
chargeable with it. Not one who defends a Chris- 
tian slave-holder, w4th whom " cruelties are correct- 
ed." Not one who condemns such a man as is in an 
" unlawful and oppressive relation." He may be 
" an accuser of the brethren," but he has not com- 
mitted that great sin per se — the system of slavery. 
Who has committed the system of slaver}^? The 
sinner ought to be known. The Correspondent will 
do well to remember the predicament of a certain 
judge who, when presiding at a public Sunday 
School meeting, and seeing a particular word, intend- 
ed to guide him in respect to the order of the per- 
formances, called out with a very sonorous voice, 
" Mr. Anthem will now favor us with an address." 
Scholars ought not to make such a mistake, as to as- 
scribe to an inanimate tiling^ Avhat belongs only to a 
moral being. 

0. R. MERTPIONFS. 



100 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 



[mPw rood.] 

TO " 0. R. MERIDIONUS:' 

Mr. Editor : — My opponent in tliis discussion is 
fully apprised that lie has laid down one position 
especially, which I regard as most unwarranted, and 
of injurious practical tendency. All his statements 
and arguments, in support of his side of the ques- 
tion, are of very little importance, as I view the sub- 
ject, compared with the repeated asseveration, that 
" There is not one evil of slavery thai is not equally inse- 
IDarable from depraved human nature in other LAWFUL 
RELATIONS." In my last article, I resolved to bring 
him to the defence of this position, or constrain him 
to abandon it. It will be borne in mind by our 
readers, that while he has reiterated this statement 
directly and indirectly, in his communications, he has 
not attempted to adduce the arguments Avhich are in- 
dispensable to sustain it. I was anxious that this 
thing should be met frankly and fearlessly, and pre- 
pared my last article Avith the design of compelling 
him to defend his position, by all the argum.ents 
within his power. I must beg the privilege of repeat- 
ing what I said, that our readers may have a distinct 
apprehension of my earnest endeavors to prevail upon 
him to exhibit all his logic and ability in defending 
a position, which I regard as untenable, and deeply 
injurious to the rights of man. I remarked as fol- 
lows : 

'' AVo have then but to look at otlier lav,'fiil relations, to 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 107 

see how little trouble any one need give himself, in regard 
to the continuance and extension of the system. The mar- 
riage relation, and the parental, are lawful relations, but 
slavery is just as innocent as they are, and there is not one 
evil connected with it, that is not equally insei3arable from 
either of them. How foolish and wicked it would be to 
abolish the marriage relation, on account of the evils that 
are at present connected with it ! And equally foolish and 
wicked is it, to wish to do away with slavery, which is a 
lawful relation, and very good, with the exception of some 
circumstances which are not ' part and parcel of the thing.' 
So also, partners in business sustain lawful relations, but 
according to the doctrine of ' Meridionus,' there is ' not 
one equally inseparable' from all business partnerships. 
Pastors and their churches sustain lawful relations, but ac- 
cording to my opponent, ' there is not one evil in slavery, 
that is not equally inseparable' from the relation of pastor 
and people. The American Board unites many friends of 
missions in lawful relations, but 'Meridioims' stakes his 
reputation as a logician and Christian philosopher, on the 
asseveration, that ' there is not one evil in slavery, that is 
not equally inseparable' from the American Board." 

Now, it is too mucli to suppose that these remarks 
sbould have escaped the notice of my opponent — 
and I presume they will not be regarded as so entirely 
irrelevant, that they did not merit a reply. And yet 
there is no allusion to tliem in the communication of 
" Meridionus" ; 7iot a loord uttered in approhation or 
condemnation. If he is satisfied with this course, it 
does not become me to complain. If he is willing to 
stand before the Christian community, as responsible 
for such a position, without girding himself to its de- 
fence, lie has a right to do so. I do not believe, bow- 
ever, he will find a very large number, either in the 
free or the slave States, who will be willing to stand 
by bis side. In proof, I mention one fact among 
many I might record. I asked a distinguished gen- 
tleman, who was born, bred, and still resides, in a 



108 DISCUSSION OX SLAYERY. 

slave-holding community, liis views of this j^osition 
of my o^Dponent. He promptly replied, "It is pre- 
posterous — there are none, save those who deal in 
hitman fleshy \\'h.o would defend such a statement." 
'' Let me assure you, Mr. Editor, that I have had 
nothing to do, knowing^, with leading ' Meridionus ' 
to place himself in such an attitude before his 
readers." 

I pass now to a brief consideration of my alleged 
inconsistencies and contradictions. I am represented, 
in effect, as having thrown together a "jumble of 
things," so that " confusion is worse confounded." 
I hope to be able to show, in a few paragraphs, that 
my contradictions are not so numerous or palpable as 
*' Meridionus" v.^ould have our readers believe. In 
speaking of the system of slavery^ I have represented 
it as one of fraud, oppression, and injustice. Nor 
have I been " so stupid" as to suppose that this system 
is sustained and perpetuated Avithout the agency of 
intelligent, responsible men. " Who is guilty of the 
system?" asks m.j opponent. I answer, the great 
mass of those who advocate and sustain it. The sin 
lies at their door — and the day of inquisition Avill 
disclose the flagrant injustice and wrongs of which 
they are chargeable. But is every individual who is 
involved in the evil workings of this system, worthy 
of condemnation ? I have answered this inquiry in. 
language as ex^Dlicit as follows : " The laws of slave- 
holding States force good men into a position which 
they deplore and abhor. They are restrained from 
acting out the jDromptings of their humane, benevo- 
lent feelings, by unrighteous and oppressive legisla- 
tion. Now, if they do the best they can, in their 
circumstances ; if thev remonstrate and petition for 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY, 100 

a change of those laws which environ them with dif- 
ficulties ; if they truly desire to give freedom to their 
bondsmen ; then I say they are not chargeable with 
the guilt of oppression. Their condition is most un- 
fortunate ; but it is not one that deserves censure." 
I have in the course of this discussion, again and 
again, expressed similar views. The case of the slave 
Tom, which I mentioned as an illustration of my 
views, will be remembered. . His master resolved to 
bring him to a free State, and give him his liberty. 
He remonstrated on account of his wife, Avho was 
owned by another person, from whom he must 
be separated. His master said . to him, make your 
own arrangements, then, and receive all your wages 
for 3^our labor, and I will hold my present legal rela- 
tion for your good. In view of this case, I remarked, 
''Is that excellent man guilty of sin, for holding that 
slave ? Ought he not to be commended and honored 
by the wise and the good? And yet the system 
which forces him into such a position, is one which 
all good men should condemn." 

ISTow, I ask my readers, if there is any glaring in- 
consistency or palpable contradiction, in this view of 
the system of slavery, and particular cases of slave- 
holding ? If I was accustomed to sa}^ severe things, 
or deal in personalities, I should be strongly tempted 
to open my battery, and give to m}^ opponent a 
scorching rebuke, for the injustice he has done me in 
his last communication. But I am thankful that I 
possess some power of self-control, and I mean to ex- 
hibit it on this occasion. I cannot omit to say, how- 
ever, that I regret exceedingly the course which he 
has seen fit to adopt. He has attempted to convict 
me of inconsistency and contradiction, and make me 



110 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY 

an object of ridicule, by means wliicli I feel quite 
sure I should not have adopted in reference to him. 

The quotations he has given, are a word here, and 
a phrase there, taken from the connection in which they 
stand^ and so jumbled together to effect the object he 
had in view, that they would prove me, if received 
in the manner he intended they should be, not only 
destitute of logic, but of common sense. " Meridio- 
nus" did not reflect in how ridiculous a light I could 
place him by adopting the method he has pursued. 
All I ask is, that what I have said shall be taken in 
the connection in wliicli it stanch^ and he fairly and 
honestly interpreted^ and then if it is pronounced in- 
conclusive, or irrelevant, or contradictory, I will not 
complain. But it is not right to place what I have 
said of the system of slavery in juxtaposition with 
what I have said of particidar individuals^ w^ho feel, 
and lament the bitter evils that cluster around it, and 
are sighing for deliverance from their burdens, and 
then raise a shout of triumph as if I had fallen into 
irreconcilable contradictions. Such a course may 
suit those, who are striving for the victory, but will 
not, I think, be sanctioned by honest and earnest 
inquirers after truth. 

A word more in close. I have a strong desire that 
Christian brethren at the South, will look at this great 
subject divested of those biasses and prejudices which 
have resulted from Avhat they suppose to be an im- 
proper interference by brethren at the North, with 
their domestic rights and privileges. That many 
things have been said and done without the exercise 
of that wisdom which is profitable to direct, I do 
most freely admit. I have no hesitation in saying 
farther, that there are men who have made themselves 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. Ill 

prominent in denouncing slave-holding in all 'possible 
circumstances^ who possess as little of the confidence 
of Northern, as they do of Southern Christians. The 
mass of good people at the North have but little 
respect for their judgment, and give no countenance 
to their vituperation and indiscriminate denunciation. 
I need not say that I refer to the Garrison school of 
abolitionists. As A body, I believe they are the 
worst enemies of the slaves, and would do twice as 
much to secure their own aggrandizement and a per- 
sonal triumph, as they would to burst the bands of 
the enslaved. Their unmeasured abuse and railing 
accusations are hurled at Christians at the North who 
will not listen to their teaching, and submit to their 
dictation, with as much bitterness as they are poured 
upon the heads of the most determined defenders of 
slavery. With large professions of philanthropy 
and benevolence, I fear the mass of them have yet to 
learn the first principles of true Christian charitj" and 
the gospel method of doing good. They have yet 
to learn that there is no argument in multipljung epi- 
thets of abuse, and that the meekness of Christ is 
more powerful in reproving wrong-doers, than the 
anathemas the}/ have been accustomed to thunder 
against those, whom they profess to be anxious to 
reform. But \hej have had their day, and will soon 
pass into the obscurity to which their talents and 
moral worth naturally consign them. There is, how- 
ever, a very large class at the North, and their num- 
ber is constantly augmenting, of an entirel}/ different 
character, who are the uncompromising enemies of 
slavery. They look upon the system as mischievous 
in all its workings ; bad for the slave, bad for the 
master, and bad for the couutrv at lars'e. Thev de- 



112 DISCUSSION ON BLAYERY. 

sire tlieir bretlircn at the Soiitli, in concert with their 
fellow-citizens, to adopt a course of measures which 
shall, in a reasonable time, subvert the sj-stem, and 
save them and their children from those evils which 
naturally and necessarily cluster around it. They 
have no desire to interfere, or meddle with things 
-which do not belong to them. All they ask, or 
desire is, that something shall be done adequate to 
the great emergency which slavery has brought upon 
the country. Surely, our Southern brethren will not 
say this is harsh, or officious, or unreasonable. Let 
them seek direction of Him, " who is wise in counsel 
and mighty in working," and be willing to do what 
His Spirit and Word shall dictate, and obstacles which 
now seem insurmountable will vanish away, and the 
captives will be set free, and a jubilee will be pro- 
claimed, and our country be in truth, what it has 
long been in song, 

" The land of the free, 
And the home of the brave." 

Such a glorious consummation, I am sure, our 
Southern brethren would hail with an ecstasy of joy. 
O, may it speedily come ; and we will at the North 
unite with our brethren at the South in adoring that 
mercy and grace which has brought us so great a 
deliverance. 

THE CORRESPONDENT OP THE N. Y. EVANGELIST. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. H; 



[dr. PARKER.] 
REPLY TO TUB CORBESPONDENT. 

Mr. Editor: — The "Correspondent" thinks he 
can show tha,t his " contradictions are not so ni(^ 
merous ors: j^al^oMe^'' as I would have my readers be- 
lieve. Why did he not, in making this concession, 
tell us how much less numerous they are, and how 
far they are wanting in pcdpableness. He then speaks 
of there being no inconsistency between his hoi ding- 
that the system of slavery is a bad thing, and his 
maintaining that the slave-holder may be a good 
man. This was not one of the points of contradic- 
tion alleged ; on the contrary, I entirely agree with 
him thus far. But what does he mean by the follow- 
ing ? Speaking of my last article, he says : 

" The quotations he has given, are a word here, 
and a word there, taken from the connection in ■wJiicli 
they sta?id, and so jumbled together, to effect the ob- 
ject he had in view, that they would prove me, if 
received, in the manner in which he intended they 
should be, not only destitute of logic, but of common 
sense." This is a most extraordinary declaration. 
You Avould think that the Correspondent would 
bring forward one clear instance of my thus misre- 
presenting him. Why did he not? Because he 
knows well that I have not, in a single case, quoted 
him in a way to prevent him being fairly and 
honestly interpreted. When he speaks of slave- 
holders imbruting the minds of the enslaved, and of 



114 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

their not allowing tlie children of slaves to obey 
their own parents, he is professedly pointing out the 
things that are inseparcible from slave-holding — things 
of which slave-holders are '' imiformlif guilty. It 
is not my fault that his logic and common sense do 
not appear to good advantage. I challenge any fair 
minded man to go back and read the quotations of 
the Correspondent's contradictions, without perceiv- 
ing that they are made with the most perfect fairness. 
He represents slave-holding — not the system merely, 
but slave-holding, wherever it exists, " as intrinsi- 
cally wrong" — " as to be denounced, as robbing men 
of their inalienable rights," &c., &c. That he has 
also spoken of the system of slavery as a singer 5e, is 
very true. But how does that prove that he has not 
elsewhere made all those strong statements about 
slave-holders ? 

I care nothing, however, about the precise iiurnher 
or palpableness of his contradictions. They doubtless 
all grow out of one vain endeavor. To maintain 
some of his mistaken positions, the Correspondent 
must play into the hands of the abolitionists, techni- 
call}^ so called, by maintaining that the holding of a 
slave voluntarily^ is a crime, — that the slave-holder, 
just hke the robber, the murderer and the drunkard^ 
ought to be called on to repent : Then he Avishes to 
say that he does not hold that slavery is a sin per 
se — that he is no Garrison man. Now how does he 
difl'er from the Garrison school ? Why in this way. 
The Garrison man says. The slaveholder is a robber 
and a man-stealer, and as such he ought to be treated 
like any other man guilty of the same crimes. That 
ministers of the gospel and pious elders, who hold 
slaves, are " Rev. Robbers and pious thieves," and 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 115 

deserve to be put in the penitentiary. The Corre- 
spondent seems to agree with them entirely, with re- 
gard to the sin, but in courtesy he would talk to 
slave-holders as his " Christian brethren at the 
South." He and the Garrison men agree with re- 
spect to the guilt of slave-holding. They only differ 
about the punishment. The Garrison men would 
treat the criminals as they deserve ; the Correspond- 
ent would shield them from deserved punishment. 
Does the Correspondent protest again that he makes 
exceptions in favor of those who are involuntar'dy 
holding slaves ? So do the Garrison school. They 
allow a man time to carrj^ home a stolen article. If 
tlieir doctrines are right, their notions of deserved 
punishment are right also. 

The Correspondent says, he resolved to bring me 
to the defence of my position. Indeed ! lias he 
forgotten that I have already answered his assertions, 
in which he charges on every voluntarj^ slave-holder 
the guilt of inibruting the mind of his slaves — pre- 
venting children from obeying their parents — with- 
holding what is justly their due, &c., &c. ? I cannot, 
of course, prove a negative — but I feai^lessly declare 
that these statements are as gratuitous and calum- 
nious, as it would be in me to say of the Correspond- 
ent, that he treats his domestic servants in an 
equally cruel and fraudulent manner. IIow can I 
answer such calumnies, but to deny them, and to 
warn my Southern brethren against being deceived 
by terms of respect, uttered with one breath, when 
the previous one had just characterized them as 
" inibruting the minds of their slaves," and robbing 
them " of their inalienable rights." 

If the Correspondent thinks he can prove that the 



116 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

holding of a man in involuntary bondage is wicked, 
wlij does he not do it ? Why is he forever quoting 
somebody's opinion ? Yf hat has that to do with the 
subject? Why talk perpetually about the systera of 
slavery ? AYhy insist upon it, that if one lawful 
thing is abolished, then every other lawful thing 
must be abolished ? Why maintain that " slavery 
is not the parental relation" — that " it is not appren- 
ticeship ?" What have such senseless truisms to do 
with the subject ? Why tell the story again about 
Tom? Why show that the laws of slave-holding 
States embarrass those who are endeavoring to free 
their slaves? We have no dispute about that. 
Why does he not prove that every inan who holds a 
slave (except he be doing his best to emancipate 
him,) is living in sin? Because it cannot be done. 

0. R. MERIDIONUS. 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 117 



[MR. ROOD.] 
REPLY TO "0. R. MERIDIONUSy 

Mr. Editor : — I do not intend in this discussion, 
to be " frightened from my propriety" by any 
amount of provocation, or to say things which, on a 
calm review, I shall have occasion to regret. I shall 
not characterize the arguments of my opponent as 
" senseless truisms," but leave our readers to judge 
of their relevancy and w^eight. lie has doubtless 
done the best he can in the defence of his positions, 
and if the Christian community shall decide that he 
has signally failed in sustaining his side of the ques- 
tion, he is still entitled to a respectful consideration 
of all the arguments he has urged without an effort 
on my part to Aveaken their force by holding them 
up to ridicule and contempt. I shall not, therefore, 
imitate Meridionus in his last communico,tion. Nor 
shall I say anything more in respect to my alleged 
inconsistencies and contradictions. The public care 
very little about that. What they are interested in, 
is to know, wdiether it be true or false, that " there is 
not one evtl in slavery that is not equally inseixtraUe 
from depraved human nature in other LAWFUL rela- 
tions." Here is a great, vital question, modifying 
and chanoins: the views of the civilized world in re- 
gard to the sy stein 0/ slayer?/ according to the decision 
which shall be passed upon it. If this be true, the 
views of the great mass of intelligent, Christian men, 
of the evils of slaverv, are altogether erroneous and 



118 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

•unfounded. As I have before remarked, if I were 
a slave-holder, and believed this representation, I 
should make mj^self quite contented, and let slavery 
work out its own redemption. 

But let me remind mj opponent that he is, at least, 
fifty years behind the age. The dark and dreadful 
evils of slavery are laid open to public inspection, 
and influences and instrumentalities are in operation, 
which must, at length, overthrow this mighty Da- 
gon. The decree has gone forth from the throne of 
heaven, as I believe, that slavery shall die, and it is 
vain for any class of men to attempt to sustain the 
tottering fabric. 

Meridionus says, he would warn Southern breth- 
ren against being deceived by terms of respect, ut- 
tered with one breath, when the previous one had 
just characterized them as imbruting the minds of 
their slaves, and robbing them of their inalienable 
rights." Let me tell him that Southern brethren see 
and feel the evils of slavery, and that his most earnest 
endeavors will never satisfy them, that it is a system 
worthy of their countenance and support. Time 
will reveal who are the real friends of the South, and 
how much brethren there are indebted to those, who 
proclaim the doctrines of my opponent. 

I have in the course of this discussion, exhibited 
the evils of slavery as " brutalizing the mind, and 
shrouding the enslaved in ignorance," — as an " un- 
lawful control Avhich slave-holders exercise over the 
children of the enslaved," — as a system Avhich "pre- 
vents masters from rendering to their servants that 
which is just and equal," — as a "right of property 
in a human being" — as an " incubus that broods over, 
and to no inconsiderable extent, paralvzes the ener- 



DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 119 

gies of both Church and State" — as an " absolute 
control of one man over his fellow-men, which God 
never delegated to him" — and as " bartering away 
rights" which are personal and inalienable. These 
positions, I think, have been fully sustained by an 
appeal to the laws of the slave-holding States, and 
the full and explicit testimony of ecclesiastical bo- 
dies, and the published declarations of such men as 
Mr. Jefferson, and Monroe, and Wm. Pinkney, and 
Patrick Henry, and Mr. Swain. My proof in sup- 
port of my positions, so flxr as luritten testimony is 
concerned, has been derived from the South and from 
Southern men^ with the exception of an extract from 
the Eev. Mr. Barnes' Book ; " Scriptural Views of 
Slavery." I most cheerfully submit to the intelli- 
gence and judgment of our readers, the points which 
have been controverted between niA'self and Meridi- 
onus. 

In the close of his last communication, he says, 
" why does not the Correspondent prove that every 
man who holds a slave, except he be doing his best 
to emancipate him, is living in sin ? Because it can- 
not be done." This is, in effect, a re-iteration of a 
previous assertion, to wit: "I assert that there are 
many hundreds of slave-holders — I mean voluntary 
slave-holders — men who have inherited plantations 
stocked with slaves, who have no plan of emancipa- 
ting, but who expect to transmit them to their heirs ; 
and yet they are excellent Christian men, and are not 
guilty of one of the sins specified." If I have 
shown, as I have aimed to do, the lurongfulness of the 
system of slavery, I have proved that voluntary slave- 
holders, who have no plan of emancipating, and no 
desire to emaiicipate, but continue to transmit their 



120 DISCUSSION ON SLAVERY. 

slaves to their lieirs, are guilt j of sin in the sight of 
God and good men. I do not hesitate to make this 
assertion, and am willing to be held res]3onsible for 
the proof. Here is a fair field of argument, if " Me- 
ridionus" chooses to enter it. I think it can be de- 
monstrated, that sach persons furnish palpable proof 
that they are living in violation of the express and 
implied commands of God. The younger Edwards 
says of this class : " You do wrong, exceedingly 
wrong — you do not as you would that men should 
do to you. Yoio commit sin in the sight of God — you 
daily violate the plain rights of mankind." Even 
John Eandolph, singular, eccentric, and reckless as 
he was, in many respects, seems to have entertained 
essentially the same view. In his Will, he says : " I, 
John Randolph, of Roanoke, in the county of Char- 
lotte, do ordain this writing, written with my own 
hand, this fourth day of Maj-, one thousand eight 
hundred and nineteen, to be my last Will and Tes- 
tament, hereby revoking all others whatsoever. I 
give to my slaves their freedom, to ivhich my conscience 
tells me they are justly entitled^ It vv^as Randolph, too, 
who administered to the Hon. Edward Everett the 
following scathing rebuke, in 1820 — " Sir, I neither 
envy the head or the heart of that man from the 
North, who rises here to defend slavery upon princi- 
ple." But it may thus be defended, if " the?^ is not 
one evil in it^ that is not equally inseparable from de- 
praved human nature in other LAWFUL relations." 
Mcridionus has signified his willingness to close this 
discussion, with this position unsustained ringing in 
his ears. So it shall be. 

THE CORRESPONDENT OF THE N. Y. EVANGELIST. 









/■■■ 



C. vP 



o 
. °o 






-O .-^ 






•"^^.^ 






.^ 






.1-2V 



-^^ . o - o . ^"^^ 



^^ 



#, 



■>^^l 









*t-. •"' 







V 









^^"^. 



... % 



.^ 






J.^ '>«^' 



.<" 




N. MANCHESTER, 
INDIANA 46962 



